# G&M:  CBC's military obsession just feels creepy



## Teddy Ruxpin (13 Dec 2006)

Another offensive, nasty commentary from the Globe and Mail.  My emphasis added:

http://www.rbcinvest.theglobeandmail.com//servlet/ArticleNews/PEstory/LAC/20061213/DOYLE13/Columnists/columnists/columnistsThearts/1/1/2/



> _*CBC's military obsession just feels creepy*_
> 
> By JOHN DOYLE
> 
> ...



Do I have to say it?


----------



## paracowboy (13 Dec 2006)

to Mr Doyle, on behalf of Canadian Infantrymen everywhere:

You're welcome. Think nothing of it. It's a privilige.


----------



## Pte_Martin (13 Dec 2006)

I've sent him a nice email


----------



## Armymedic (13 Dec 2006)

I thought covering all sides of a story was what professional journalists do. I would sumize then that this "commentator" from G&M is not a professional journalist, but just a writer with an axe to grind and a medium to be heard.


----------



## Wookilar (13 Dec 2006)

Mr Doyle (and all that think like him),

Sorry for the "terrifying footage" of what soldiers do. We did not mean to wake you from your Liberal-era Peacekeeping dream.

Can someone take this guy and introduce him to some troops? "logic and truth they have not" ? What? Reality terrifies him, but he'll throw up an ad for reality-based forensic show? Mulder and a guy gutted and hung up like a scarecrow is ok for prime time, but talking to soldiers is not?

Is this guy ever getting an email from me. Not from my work account though, won't do that twice.  :-[ I'll wait till I get home.


----------



## North Star (13 Dec 2006)

This guy's probably still traumatized by the lack of government interference in the Canadian industry. Easy on'em boys, he's already destroyed by the cancellation of some television projects for sub-standard actors while we're getting new protective equipment.


----------



## derael (13 Dec 2006)

Yeah, shame on the CBC for doing some real journalism for once. They should have hidden the truth because the reality of what our troops do in combat should never be seen!  :tsktsk:  :


----------



## mover1 (13 Dec 2006)

Hey I was glad to see my wife on T.V. last night.


----------



## Kirkhill (13 Dec 2006)

My e-mail to Mr. Doyle.



> Given how much time the media, including the CBC, has given to sowing (and fertilizing) the seeds of that dissent, it seems only reasonable that at SOME point in time a positive message supporting The Government’s position (is broadcast).  Not to mention the position of the Afghan government, NATO and the United Nations (both Security Council and General Assembly).
> 
> You are free to disagree – and I know that you are aware of the joys of a bully pulpit – Is it asking too much of you to give the Government time to present its case with the same amount of vigour as the Press Corps and the opposition parties oppose.
> 
> ...


----------



## observor 69 (13 Dec 2006)

John Doyle

John Doyle is The Globe and Mail's Television Critic. His column appear on the Review section on Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday. He also writes a column for Globe Television magazine which appears on Saturdays. Doyle has been writing about television for the Globe for 10 years.

Born in Ireland, Doyle holds a BA in English Literature and an MA in Anglo-Irish Studies from University College, Dublin. He came to Canada in 1980 to pursue a PhD in English Literature at York University in Toronto. Having done some student and freelance journalism in Ireland, Doyle continued to write in Canada and eventually abandoned writing for academic reward to concentrate on writing for a living. After working briefly in radio and in television, he began writing a column for Broadcast Week, then the Globe's TV magazine, in 1991. He was appointed the full-time Critic for the magazine in 1995. In October of 2000 he became the Television Critic for the paper.

Always argumentative, Doyle has the distinction of winning a gold medal, at the age of ten, for his debating skills in the Gaelic language. He has been widely published in Canada, the U.S., Britain and Ireland and lectured on Television and other aspects of popular culture. In a profile of Doyle published in Toronto Life magazine in July 2000, Robert Fulford wrote, "A critic as intelligent, industrious and ambitious as John Doyle should be cherished."


Quote from article  :

 Of course, any thinking, feeling person can grasp the difficulties facing families with a member serving in Afghanistan. It's tough and emotionally wrenching. But we don't need to be hit over the head with the message.

  The debate about Canada's role in Afghanistan is one of considerable scope and complexity. It is debated almost daily by politicians from all sides. The day after The National indulged in its boosterism, this paper had, on its front page, a report that Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe is ready to trigger the defeat of the Conservative government if Canada's role in Afghanistan does not change soon. Opposition Leader Stéphane Dion is also demanding a refocusing of the Afghan mission, and says the government was wrong to prolong its military commitment there until 2009.

In this circumstance, CBC's attitude and actions give the appearance of an obedient press corps, placating the government


----------



## Brad Sallows (13 Dec 2006)

Speaking of giddy, I wonder if he was at the Liberal leadership convention?


----------



## Journeyman (13 Dec 2006)

> By JOHN DOYLE
> The debate about Canada's role in Afghanistan is one of considerable scope and complexity. It is debated almost daily by politicians from all sides. The day after The National indulged in its boosterism, this paper had, on its front page, a report that Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe is ready to trigger the defeat of the Conservative government if Canada's role in Afghanistan does not change soon. Opposition Leader Stéphane Dion is also demanding a refocusing of the Afghan mission, and says the government was wrong to prolong its military commitment there until 2009.
> *In this circumstance, CBC's attitude and actions give the appearance of an obedient press corps, placating the government.*


So, balanced reporting, rather than merely parrotting the voices of those whose mandate is solely being "anti-government," is deemed "boosterism" by an "obedient press corps." 

When coupled with...


			
				Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> John Doyle...Always argumentative..


..and Doyle's own statement, "But I come from a contrary people"

So what you have here is a guy whose business and personality thrive on being argumentative. Facts aren't necessary - - merely to get a rise out of an audience is ALL he craves.

Responding, in any way, will produce nothing more than the story about wrestling with a pig.....you'll both get muddy, but the pig will enjoy it more.

He's a loser. <ignore>


----------



## GAP (13 Dec 2006)

my email to him



> Me, I'm away for a day. Back here on ....don't hurry


----------



## Boxkicker (13 Dec 2006)

Well I already emailed the 2 D's and kindly asked them two cease and decist, and told them what I thought in a polite tone. But this guy has taken the cake, the CBC finally does a decent piece of journalism and this guy slams it left right and center, and makes it sound like the guys's who were awarded medals were school children just winning a soccer game. He will be getting a very nasty email from my home address. How do you spell the word PR**K.


----------



## George Wallace (13 Dec 2006)

I think that G&M article deserves the boycotting of the G&M on all Bases, in all Canex outlets, and in all private and public deliveries to Headquarters and homes alike.  Perhaps with the loss of readership, revenues, and interest in their paper, the G&M can pension this twit off.  (We all know that he will scam a six or seven figure severance fee from them, which they will pay readily.)   :


----------



## andrewlegere (13 Dec 2006)

I stopped at work to watch that episode the other night that took place in Edmonton.  I also watched the one last night that took place in Trenton, Ont.  I was shocked to see a televison station finaly showing somthing about the Canadian Military.  Ive been angry latly on the lack of support that Canadian television gives our Military.  I know its always been like that but it shouldnt be.  I can turn on the tv 24/hours a day and find out what is happening in Iraq with the Americans when ever I want... but canada... to be honest, I bet there are people that dont even know we are fighting a war right now.  All my support goes out to CBC and what they are doing right now, travelling to many bases and informing the public what is happening and what happens at those bases.  For someone to critisize CBC for reaching out and trying to tell the public what is happening should not be considered a Canadian.  That is not a true Canadian.  CBC is supporting our troops, telling the public where they can send letters of support to "any" member of the services, and informing the public, well i hope they keep doing so, cheers to CBC.


----------



## probum non poenitet (13 Dec 2006)

> A few were clearly giddy from the experience of combat. Their perspective on combat was raw and unfocused. Medals for valour they may have won, but logic and truth they have not.



First-hand experience with combat doesn't teach you anything about war? Being a TV critic does?

I have about 100 smart-ass comments I could dish out here. But why bother?

There are many in this country who will be ungrateful to those who serve, because it is in their natures to be ungrateful to those who serve. 

I take solace in that there are many in this country who _are _ grateful. They are quiet about it. They are classy about it.
I know a sweet lady who has given me a Christmas decoration and a hug for the last two years, and says it is, "For all of us, and especially for those in danger."

Bless her.

Screw him.


----------



## papatango (13 Dec 2006)

ACTA NON VERBA. 

Be proud of the goals all of you have accomplished; the CBC story hit home with many here in Toronto, and we truely see the effort all of you put forward. Articles such as this will not sway the hearts nor minds of the civies who stand behind the troops and the battles they face.


----------



## Kilo_302 (13 Dec 2006)

While I had to admit the CBC's coverage is too little, too late, its better late than never. On another note, I have never before heard the word "fetishize".


----------



## Danjanou (13 Dec 2006)

All right we get it. This frolicker in the shallow end of the gene pools little whine pissed us off. 

I’ll be honest when I read it my first instinct, well my second instinct after retching, was to warm up the ole throat punch mobile and go reward Mr Doyle with a a little ahem “Christmas present” to show my appreciation.  I am a grown up though despite my wife’s opinion, so I didn’t.

Lets put this in perspective though. We’re not being dissed by GwynneDyer or any other known foreign correspondents/defecne writers or even a network talking head here. This mouth breather is the frickin TV critic for his rag. In the journalist pecking order that must rank just ahead of the garden critic and the schmuck who checks the classifieds for typos.

I’m betting it was a slow news day and/or he fell asleep in front of the tube the night before and therefore couldn’t do his planned column on which Seinfeld rerun we should watch or his deep and profound insights into Dancing with the Stars.


----------



## midget-boyd91 (13 Dec 2006)

Just the fact that he says they are using Christmas to go overbooard is insulting. They are doing this on Christmas because our boys and girls are away from their families DURING Christmas and that is not an easy thing to do. This is giving them the recognition they deserve, it is in no way "fetishizing."


50


----------



## George Wallace (13 Dec 2006)

Aren't we ever so lucky that JOHN DOYLE can go home every evening and sleep so safe and snug in his nice warm bed, without any other cares in the world but what CBC News is broadcasting on the late night News to the Nation.  

 :


----------



## Wootan 9 (13 Dec 2006)

I sent this letter to the editor today - we'll see if they bite.

_The only thing "odious" or "creepy" about "The National's" coverage of the Canadian military is the unconsionable column by John Doyle on Dec. 13.

I understand that "media elites" like Doyle are uncomfortable with the fact that Canadian Forces members live by concepts like "selfless service" and the "unlimited liability" that comes with military service - it simply does not fit into their particular world view. I also understand that it's far more fun to critique Mansbridge's turtleneck than to admit that there is such a thing as a Canadian hero.

However, Doyle might have enhanced his understanding if he had listened to the substantive words of Sgt. Patrick Tower, winner of the Star of Military Valour (second only to the Victoria Cross)or spent a minute with the photo of Captain Nic Goddard (awarded the Meritorious Service Medal posthumously).

These soldiers, and the other 90000 Canadians who serve as regulars and reservists, exemplify the values of the Canadian Forces.  Their concerns are far removed from matters of media optics - they are also far more vital to Canadians and to the future of Afghanistan.  CBC's interest in them is both warranted and commendable and Doyle's supercilious commentary is unworthy of Canada's paper of record._

MC

I was more than a little irate that a guy who flicks a remote for a living could publish junk like this.  Hard to believe that he works for the same paper as Christie Blatchford!

Cheers


----------



## 3rd Horseman (13 Dec 2006)

Just Rubbish,

  That's it for me ...Last G&M paper I ever buy.


----------



## armyvern (13 Dec 2006)

I am disgusted. Period. Absolutely disgusted.


----------



## Mike Baker (13 Dec 2006)

The Librarian said:
			
		

> I am disgusted. Period. Absolutely disgusted.


+1.


----------



## warspite (13 Dec 2006)

I've had a great day and this guy isn't worth it to get upset over. He's a television critic, I'm sure people atke his views on the world as the gospel truth :. Now if this was the front page story I just might have to get angry but this waste of oxygen isn't worth getting worked up over....


----------



## ClaytonD (13 Dec 2006)

Argument with facts and logic = Great. The best thing for this society, no matter what side is taken.

Sadly he isn't arguing with facts and/or logic, maybe he doesn't want to accept the fact that Canada has a proud military history. And a proud current military. Maybe he doesn't realize that war is a serious topic.

I love how he says that the soldiers do not use truth or logic. Yet he hasn't used an eensy amount of it in this article.

I'm saddened that he shares the name of my family.


----------



## Pencil Tech (13 Dec 2006)

Well, I just cancelled my Globe subscription, and sent a nice email to Mr Doyle.  :threat: I don't mind commentary in the paper that is opposed to the mission, but not from the bloody TV critic.


----------



## Bobbyoreo (13 Dec 2006)

Papatango.....its Facta Non Verba.....


----------



## from darkness lite (13 Dec 2006)

Sometimes I can't believe Christie Blatchford and this guy work for the same organization.  It be interesting to here her take on this.....

FDL


----------



## ladybugmabj (14 Dec 2006)

Mr. Doyle has forgotten the following:

*[size=10pt]It is the soldier, not the reporter, Who has given us freedom of the press[/size*]. 
It is the soldier, not the poet, Who has given us freedom of speech. 
It is the soldier, not the organizer, Who has given us the freedom to demonstrate.
It is the soldier, Who salutes the flag, Who serves beneath the flag, 
And whose coffin is draped by the flag, Who allows the protestor to burn the flag. 


Thank you to all who bravely serve, go away for periods on end, over Christmas, birthdays, anniversaries, etc. The job that you do will never be forgotten.   Thank you!!


----------



## gaspasser (14 Dec 2006)

I posted last night on another thread in regards to CBC broadcasting from here in Trenton.  I had said that the CBC has "scooped" CTV by visiting us here.  I say that it looks good on them. I know it meant a lot to me, and probably other members, to see some of the people behind the scenes during a repatriation and general day to day operations here in the Air Force.  Not everyone is a pilot!  Rex Murphy's interview with Padre Mike brought the odd lump to my throat, the whole show hit home.  Kudos to CBC expecially at this time of the year when all of our hopes and prayers go to "our warriors deployed" 

PS, Thanks LBM for posting that poem.  You beat most of us to the punch.


----------



## ladybugmabj (14 Dec 2006)

You're welcome!  I remember the poem was read at the memorial for Rob Short and Rob Beerenfenger 3 years ago. It's so true. I was at the taping tonight here in Petawawa, and it was nice for Peter Mansbridge to admit after that what we live through, he and the rest of Canada doesn't really see, and he admitted that the media doesnt' do the PRT and all the reconstruction justice. He talked to some of the widows and thanked them and our husbands who are fighting for the job that they do.


----------



## observor 69 (14 Dec 2006)

ladybugmabj said:
			
		

> You're welcome!  I remember the poem was read at the memorial for Rob Short and Rob Beerenfenger 3 years ago. It's so true. I was at the taping tonight here in Petawawa, and it was nice for Peter Mansbridge to admit after that what we live through, he and the rest of Canada doesn't really see, and he admitted that the media doesnt' do the PRT and all the reconstruction justice. He talked to some of the widows and thanked them and our husbands who are fighting for the job that they do.



I watched the CBC's "The National" last night from Pet and it was a great show. You would have to have a heart of stone not to see the emotional stress placed on the family members while their loved ones are away. BZ to the CBC for showing Canadians what great people make up our Canadian Forces.


----------



## mover1 (14 Dec 2006)

Peter Mansbridge did a nice bit of replying to this article as well.....


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20061214.wmansbridge14/BNStory/Entertainment/home

Mansbridge: Covering all angles of Afghanistan
CBC's reporting has included the debate over the mission, Peter Mansbridge retorts 
PETER MANSBRIDGE 

From Thursday's Globe and Mail

Over the past five years, CBC News has spent considerable time and resources covering Canada's armed involvement in Afghanistan. Not only is Afghanistan this country's most challenging military operation in a half-century, it is a crucial public-policy issue that engages and concerns most Canadians.

Our reporters have been covering every aspect of this operation — including the continuing debate as to “why” Canada is there. We have covered it from the front lines in Afghanistan to Canada's Parliament in Ottawa, as well as many international conferences in between.

We are proud of our coverage. And we know, from the positive response of so many Canadians to it, that it has been helpful to many in understanding the important issues in front of us all.

Wednesday, The Globe's TV columnist John Doyle, writing from the vantage point of what he calls his “TV Cranny,” found this effort positively “creepy.” He took particular exception with Monday's special “On the Road” broadcast of The National from Edmonton, which looked at how families of those serving in Kandahar, or soon to go, are coping (rather well) and are helping support one another through the long separation.

 Doyle found this somehow a lapse in journalistic responsibility. He wrote: “Of course, any thinking, feeling person can grasp the difficulties facing families with a member serving in Afghanistan. It's tough and emotionally wrenching. But we don't need to be hit over the head with the message. Besides, the population is not united in support of our current role in Afghanistan.” 

Indeed, the public is not united over this role — as the CBC has clearly reported. In a poll this autumn, we showed that the Canadian public was split 52-48 per cent in favour. We also reported that 58 per cent did not believe the mission would succeed.

The very same poll, however, showed the overwhelming majority of Canadians, whatever their views of about the Afghan mission, thought very highly of the military (73 per cent). So we don't feel an obligation to act as if soldiers and their families should somehow remain an overlooked minority of no account, mere shadows in the corner of the holiday season.

We have no apologies to make. Our coverage of the war has been praised by those for the mission and by those against. Reporters have in the past explored a great deal of the dirty underbelly of this war, often at personal risk.

The CBC has operated 24/7 on the ground in Kandahar since the current mission landed there and is on frequent patrol with our forward troops.

We have reported extensively not only on the heavy fighting of recent months, but also on the extremely difficult attempts to get civilian reconstruction programs under way.

Brian Stewart's recent documentary Road to Kandahar for the first time revealed the infighting within the military and cabinet over Canada's initial role in Afghanistan. His regular “Inside the Mission” segment on The National examines the high cost and casualties of the war along with the shifts in public attitudes toward our commitment.

There has been a countless number of reports, documentaries and interview segments on The National and our other CBC News television, radio and online programs and services.

What is particularly offensive about Doyle's column is his charge that CBC's actions “give the appearance of an obedient press corps, placating the government.” What absolute nonsense.

Not only has CBC News been covering this conflict — from all perspectives, including those who oppose Canada's involvement — for several years before this current government was even elected, the CBC has been reporting on Canadian troops in war and conflict zones for 67 years.

War coverage is part of our network's heritage. This does not show an obsession with the military, as Doyle claims, but rather a determination to cover the story from all angles, with balance and an openness to many views, including those of family members missing loved ones at the front.

These people do exist, and CBC News will continue to listen to them too ... whatever the distress level in Doyle's “TV Cranny.”

Peter Mansbridge is chief correspondent for CBC News and anchor of The National.


----------



## Pte_Martin (14 Dec 2006)

Pencil Tech said:
			
		

> Well, I just cancelled my Globe subscription, and sent a nice email to Mr Doyle.  :threat: I don't mind commentary in the paper that is opposed to the mission, but not from the bloody TV critic.


Good on ya, if enough people do what you have done it should make a difference ans the globe might realize that the shouldn't have wacko people in their organization


----------



## Armymedic (14 Dec 2006)

In the G&M, at the bottom of the article is an area to leave comments...

please do.


----------



## George Wallace (14 Dec 2006)

St. Micheal's Medical Team said:
			
		

> In the G&M, at the bottom of the article is an area to leave comments...
> 
> please do.



Not on my version.......unless you want to email him directly.


----------



## cplcaldwell (14 Dec 2006)

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20061214.wmansbridge14/CommentStory/Entertainment/home


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Dec 2006)

St. Micheal's Medical Team said:
			
		

> In the G&M, at the bottom of the article is an area to leave comments...
> 
> please do.



There was one, yesterday; I left a comment - not overly rude, but I did suggest that Doyle _et al_ were "_pretentious latte sippers_" who sat in Yorkville "_gossipping like fishwives about second rate Canadian TV programmes_."  My comment was not posted and, today, the _invitation_ to comment is gone.

I suspect the _Good Grey Globe_ was bombarded with complaints and is trying to distance itself from the whole thing.


----------



## cplcaldwell (14 Dec 2006)

> ... pretentious latte sippers ... gossipping like fishwives about second rate Canadian TV programmes....



 :rofl:

Given those little snippets...

Oh... how I would have liked to see the entire missive...


----------



## George Wallace (14 Dec 2006)

cplcaldwell said:
			
		

> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20061214.wmansbridge14/CommentStory/Entertainment/home



This is the link to comment on the Mansbridge article.  I think more would prefer to comment on the Doyle article.


----------



## cplcaldwell (14 Dec 2006)

Seen


----------



## baac (14 Dec 2006)

All,

I'm new here and I've been trying to be the 'grey man' and keep a low profile, but this pi@@ed me off. I wrote this letter to the G&M, but I know they'll never publish it online.

Just FYI:

With respect, John Doyle needs to sit in his "TV cranny" and shut the hell up. He’s so obviously uninformed, so gleefully free of the burden of unnecessary details like ‘facts’ or ‘perspective’, that his editors should limit his published opinions to whatever happened on last night’s America’s Top Model.

Mr. Mansbridge is too much the consummate professional to say it (though he does a good job of implying it), but maybe Doyle should perhaps read his own paper? Or maybe a book? Or have someone read one to him and point to the pictures?

Canada is involved in an international conflict, and whether Doyle agrees with it or not is irrelevant – in a democracy it is the right, the burden, of each free citizen to debate policy. But, to sit back and sarcastically criticize the small amount of air time dedicated to celebrating the men and women in our armed forces during the holiday season is at best moronic, at worst intentionally misleading.

Thank God we have real journalists like Mr. Mansbridge to offer informed opinion.

Yours,

Brendan Christie


----------



## jollyjacktar (14 Dec 2006)

I must say that it is a pleasant change to have the CBC on our side for a change.  I remember the days of Oka when the likes of Ralph Benmurgi on his CBC mid day news show all but put horns and pitchforks on every CF member.  We could do no right and were the target of the left leaning establishment on an almost daily roto.  

Cheers to the CBC for the change of heart and "get suffed" to the Globe and Mail and Mr Doyle in particular.


----------



## Pte_Martin (14 Dec 2006)

I left a reply and the peom by Charles Province and i got this reply 
Major Pain from Canada writes: Personally, I'd be happy to see Mr. Ignatieff go. However, I think he's also good for the party in that he represents a viewpoint held by many Liberals. Dion and Iggy working together will strengthen the party, but there will be bumps in the road. Look at the Chretien-Martin team. Unbeatable, even though they differed on much. This is better than the Conservative lockdown on dissenting ideas that we have seen thus far.

Oh, and _My name and town_, I imporved on your jingoistic SUPPORT OUR TROOPS rant: 

IT IS THE ZEALOT
by Major Charles M. Pain

IT IS THE ZEALOT, not the soldier,
Who rails against freedom of the press in the name of war.

IT IS THE ZEALOT, not the soldier,
Who would modify freedom of speech so as not to offend 'the troops'.

IT IS THE ZEALOT, not the soldier,
Who would take away our freedom to demonstrate in the name of 'national security'.

IT IS THE ZEALOT, not the soldier,
Who would give a fair trial to those accused of only the 'right' crimes, and would ship the rest off to camps under a security certificate.

IT IS THE ZEALOT who salutes the flag blindly,
Who denies the use of the flag to those who disagree with him and
Whose rhetoric is the pornography of 'the flag',
And who denigrates our troops by presuming to be man enough to speak for them.

and there's people who are using the peom to change it into "It is soldiers who take away freedoms (military coups, police states). "
or this "IS IS THE SOLDIER, not the peacekeeper
that kills, maims, destroys, leaves children fatherless, women weeping."

Why are people so Retarded?


----------



## cplcaldwell (14 Dec 2006)

Something I read a while ago the Sun, Lorrie Goldstein, We're right, They're Evil, 10 Dec 06




> “The contemporary _anointed_ and those who follow them make much of their ‘compassion’ for the less fortunate, their ‘concern’ for the environment, and their being ‘anti-war’ ... _as if these were characteristics which distinguish them from people with opposite views on public policy_.
> 
> The very idea that ... an opponent of the prevailing vision ... has just as much compassion for the poor and the disadvantaged, that he is just as much appalled by pollution, or as horrified by the sufferings and slaughter imposed by war ... would be a very discordant note in the vision of the anointed ... _this would mean that opposing arguments on social policy were arguments about methods, probabilities and empirical evidence — with compassion, caring and the like being common features on both sides ..._
> 
> ...



Goldstein was writing about Liberal vs. Conservative approaches to social policy when he was quoting Thomas Sowell here. The anointed are those people who hold "as the prevailing, paternalistic liberal vision of our age" and are "an alliance of political, judicial, academic and media elites. "

He goes on to draw some parallels, but basically it all boiled down to the "_anointed's_" dictum that ,



> Agree, or you’re a bigot



and thus by extension, if you're a bigot 'I'm' a good guy.

In this case war is bad, because George Bush started it (and he ain't one of us), and soldiers wage war so, they're bad as well. 

Sort of _Argumentum ad Nazium_ taken to a new degree but coupled with a self-righteous self-justifying intellectual deafness. To wit, they cannot hear any other argument except their own, and in their deafness, condemn all who are not mouthing their own words to bigotry.



Quotes from the Toronto Sun, 10 Dec 06, Shared under the Dair Dealings Provisions of the Copyright Act, RSC.


----------



## observor 69 (14 Dec 2006)

cplcaldwell said:
			
		

> In this case war is bad, because George Bush started it (and he ain't one of us), and soldiers wage war so, they're bad as well.
> 
> 
> Quotes from the Toronto Sun, 10 Dec 06, Shared under the Dair Dealings Provisions of the Copyright Act, RSC.
> ...


----------



## cplcaldwell (14 Dec 2006)

> The same poll showed that the only organization left that Americans trust is the military and the Generals for talking truth to power.



Good point, Baden Guy, in that regard the American public seems to have evolved past their past positions: Have Canadians so evolved?

I wonder sometimes when I read the shrill pronouncements that are being levelled at (for instance) CDS in _some_ online blogs. IMHO, we're damn lucky to have a boss like this. 

Why do I say this? look at the results. 

Why do people rant _against_ CDS and other senior CF leaders? (Again, IMHO) because they are fundamentally unable to accept anything that comes from the military as sensible (unless of course it has to do with white pick up trucks).


----------



## observor 69 (14 Dec 2006)

I was curious so I checked the Letters to the Editor in today's G&M. There was no letter that spoke to this topic. Except for this posted earlier in this thread.

CBC's reporting has included the debate over the mission, Peter Mansbridge retorts 
PETER MANSBRIDGE


----------



## Kirkhill (14 Dec 2006)

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/afghanistan/afghanistan-survey2006.html
Poll done for the CBC in November



> 1. Generally speaking, would you say that your opinion of the Canadian Armed Forces is %
> Very favourable 34
> Somewhat favourable 39
> Not very fabourable 14
> ...



So from this survey I'd say that the CF has the continuing support of 75 to 80% of the Canadian public, even in the face of a fighting role.  If they have problems it is with the Government for putting/leaving you there.  Most people see good reasons to be there.  Few people (although a distressingly large number - about 20-25%) seem to be determinedly anti American.  But the big kicker is how many people (perhaps including the anti-US types) are against involvement out of FEAR of consequences - both to serving personnel and to themselves.

The issue then is NOT that they don't trust the troops, or the CDS, or even Harper, Dion, Chretien or Martin.  Those that are against the mission appear to be primarily afraid.  Perhaps understandably for a country where 25% of its current population are recent immigrants who have come here because it is a safe haven.

For the rest - the anti-americans etc - it is hard for me to find a redeeming argument for them.


----------



## Kirkhill (14 Dec 2006)

By the way, here is the link to Mansbridge's Retort mentioned by Baden Guy.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20061214.wmansbridge14/BNStory/Entertainment/

Pretty good ....



[Edit:  Or if you had read this whole topic, you would have read it in Post #38 http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/54573/post-495766.html#msg495766 ]


----------



## Kirkhill (14 Dec 2006)

Oh, and one other thing - for those that don't question the mission, just the direction and probability of success,  here's another interesting release from the Senlis Council.

I can't say that they don't make sense....



> ...International agencies, including the Canadian International Development Agency, have failed to tackle the food emergency in southern Afghanistan, and NATO soldiers in the region are paying the price, a new report says.
> 
> The paper, released Thursday by the Senlis Council, an international think tank, says "misguided" policies by agencies such as CIDA and the British Department for International Development have left the local population hungry and angry towards the international community.
> 
> "The Taliban are waging a successful hearts-and-minds strategy in southern Afghanistan; the international community is not," the report says. "As a result, the [NATO] military forces on the ground are forced to fight in an increasingly hostile environment."....



http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2006/12/14/senlis-report-061214.html


----------



## Colin Parkinson (14 Dec 2006)

I noticed in the CTV reports, it seems to be the military’s fault that the aid agencies “can’t” do their job.  :

Funny my rather anti-US sister inlaw was in Aceh after the wave hit, her opinion of NGO's is rather low because of that trip, she conceded that the US Navy was one of the few functioning groups there.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (14 Dec 2006)

I hate watching the news these days, but I watched the Monday night piece when my wife told me what was on.  I'd like to thank Mr Mansbridge and his team for putting that together.  It was tough to watch, but I'm glad I did.  Our guys did us proud.  My co-workers mentioned Tuesday night's show to me because I ended up in it (visual only).  

The CBC team made a series about the Canadians who are involved in the war, and I thought they did a great job showing that the soldiers and their families are people.  If that upsets some art critic then so be it.  


Cheers


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Dec 2006)

Here, from today’s (16 Dec 06) _Globe and Mail_ is Christie Blatchford’s word on the Doyle/Mansbridge spat; it is reproduced under the Fail Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20061215.wxcoblatch16/BNStory/specialComment/home 


> Our soldiers deserve the country's attention
> 
> *CHRISTIE BLATCHFORD*
> From Saturday's Globe and Mail
> ...



Spot on, Ms. Blatchford!  Thanks for telling the Bloor Street _commentariat_ the simple truth.


----------



## warpig (16 Dec 2006)

Hummm….seems just a month or so ago, the CBC could do no right. I am so glad to have the many CBC detractors on thread http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/53353.0.html  coming onside and completely reversing themselves. It takes big men to do that and you deserve the credit.

Not that I wanna rub it in much….

Perhaps Christy Blanchford has a good point, that Canadians have an inherent unease about their own military. I can’t be objective enough to see her point of view from the outside of the organization, so her point may well be valid. I believe that Canadians easily accept their military because we represent them in diversity and region, we correspond to their cultural wishes and we’ve a history of good behaviour and positive deeds. What most Canadians feel skittish about is operations that could devolve into what America has experienced over the last 40 years. For reasons we Canadians feel are positive, we as a nation have refused to get involved in questionable wars. Wars that in retrospect were about American national interest. Wars that had all kinds of bloody nefariousness about them. Wars of questionable morality. 
People on this site can debate the validity of that last statement, but Canadians aren’t myopic about their military. They just don’t want to tropes about the world causing more suffering. That is what Canadians are fearful about. Blanchford missed that in her defence of our nation’s military news coverage. I wonder if her mindset has room for that particular concept?

Just an aside, I remember Miss Blanchford well when she was a “first-time reporter”,  commenting “how bright and articulate the young troops are…”. She asked us one night on the road to Sarajevo way back when what those lovely green lights floating up to the sky from the ground were. “Serb tracers” we replied, noting it had finally dawned on her she was far from Toronto. Nice to see her become the confident and veteran correspondent she is, after a long education. It took her 14 years to get this far, so perhaps we can lend a bit of understanding to the point that Joe Canada public doesn’t understand their own military that well.


----------



## Journeyman (16 Dec 2006)

warpig said:
			
		

> *For reasons we Canadians feel are positive, we as a nation have refused to get involved in questionable wars. Wars that in retrospect were about American national interest.*


 You believe that Canadians see it as a "positive" that our military had been neglected actively run down to the point that, until recently, it was simply not capable of participating in "questionable wars"? I personally don't think your average Canadian has bothered to be adequately informed about the decision-making behind _any_ of our deployments - - except possibly in hindsight, when any thought has been dragged down to the level of politicians' sound-bites as they attempt to score hazard-free points in Parliament.

And you also believe there to be such a large gap between the interests of the US and Canada? I would suggest that, despite the ravings of those who live in Starbucks in downtown Toronto (usually wailing about the evils of US globalization), sharing similar heritage, representative democracy, economics, and a pretty common landmass makes our interests quite similar.


----------



## HDE (16 Dec 2006)

The reporter's name is Christie Blatchford, not Christy Blanchford.   Attention to detail is always a good sign.


----------



## military granny (16 Dec 2006)

http://www.rbcinvest.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/PEstory/LAC/20061216/COBLATCH16/Headlines/headdex/headdexComment/10/10/21/

I was en route here this week when the CBC's The National devoted much of one newscast to Canadian soldiers and the mission in Afghanistan as part of what the network calls its On the Road series.

Even if The National gave too much time to soldiers this one night, who more richly deserves the country's attention and air time?

I'd rather watch 100 hours about those who would lay down their lives for their brothers, than see one more minute about those who debate the merits of sacrifice from the hothouses of Ottawa and Toronto.


More on Link


----------



## Yrys (16 Dec 2006)

> The cumulative effect was that soldiers were rendered strangers, and that in what passes for the intellectual salons of central Canada, "soldier" came to be synonymous with "joke" or "guy who can't get a real job,"* which is pretty rich from those who dwell in* university ivory towers, editorial boardrooms and on Parliament Hill.



Same article ...


----------



## gaspasser (16 Dec 2006)

I must say that Mr. Doyle certainly has opened a can of worms amoungst his own and taken a rather interesting anti-press position of the CBC.  I for one watched the CBC from Trenton (one of the only times I'll admit to watching CBC) and thought it was very professionally done.  Peter was laid back and the stories and atmosphere seemed very much "support our troops"  I think the only thing missing was have Peter wear a red t-shirt.
I also read Mr. Doyle's article in another thread and must say that maybe he should keep his head down for awhile or do what other reporters are doing and get off his butt and go to Afgan before he types.   Oh, that's right, he's only a TV Critic.
Shot over.


----------



## old fart (16 Dec 2006)

Apparently Doyle is not the tallest tree in the journalistic forest, if you can believe this:

http://www.thegantelope.com/archives/000316.html

With regard to his bio, further searches fail to pin down his citizenship status....launch the Feds...I think he is an illegal.....

He is certainly a w_anker….Merry Christmas!


----------



## Roy Harding (16 Dec 2006)

The email I sent to Mr. Doyle (jdoyle@globeandmail.ca), with a CC: to Christie (cblatchford@globeandmail.ca)



> Subj:  Stay In Your Lane Mr. Doyle
> 
> As I haven't watched television since 1997 (AT ALL - EVER), I am not usually aware of your columns - their subject holds no interest for me.
> 
> ...


----------



## warpig (16 Dec 2006)

Re: HDE’s commentary.

I didn’t say that I thought it was “positive” that our military had been on the rust-out, and I don’t think that at any time Canadians saw it as “positive”. I don’t think that has much to do with the topic, really. Perhaps we had rust-out because Canadians were wishing for a peace dividend and wanted spending cut back in the day. A case of the greater information malaise Canadians have for most of their government activities, I would think. If any serving member were to phone up a cousin not connected to the military and ask him to describe exactly what Canada is doing right now in Afghanistan and how they are doing it, what do you think would be his response?

If we as Canadians are generally not well informed about the Canadian military, then that is an issue for the media and the Government to address. But you can’t make people involved against their wills. Look at how many vote in municipal elections.

As for my thoughts on US and Canadian interests coinciding or not, I strongly believe, based on our past history, that aside from cross-border issues and general Western cultural issues, we have little in common with American intentions internationally. We participate in some Organizations because it’s mutually beneficial, not because we have common goals. I mean, were you keen to get involved in the invasion of Panama, the Contra War in Nicaragua, or the war in Vietnam? Why would we, when nothing about those wars has any great Canadian interest? And look at the background behind those wars. It’s a sordid, rather dirty series of messes. Yes we have common interests, but we do not see the world the way America does. That’s an important distinction.


----------



## a_majoor (17 Dec 2006)

Since free markets, the Rule of Law and human rights are important to western cultures, then I will get on side and say that preserving these rights and freedoms, and by extension, taking actions to extend these rights and freedoms to others are very much in Canada's interests.

The main difference is from the 1960's until the 1990's, our "elites" decided the Americans could do the protecting and extending freedom work for us as well, so "we" really have no moral high ground to stand on to criticise those who we gave the job to. Now that we are taking our place among the responsible nations in the world, the general public, the media and many politicians have discovered that we live in a universe of limited resources and that we need to choose where we use our resources carefully. We are also rediscovering the world is not entirely black and white, and often we have to try to find the least worst of a series of bad options.


----------



## The Wrong Guy (17 Dec 2006)

Am I the only one that thinks, Christie Blatchford would have a hard time paying for a beer in any Army Mess.

The amount of will full ignorance among the public, media, and the politicians about the Military, and the world out side of their small little box, seems to be endless.


----------



## ladybugmabj (17 Dec 2006)

No, I do believe that Christie will have a never ending supply of drinks waiting for her at any mess at any CF!!


----------



## Wookilar (17 Dec 2006)

I also like the fact that Christie is starting to talk like us.

She said "pointy head." 

Wook


----------



## Journeyman (17 Dec 2006)

Wookilar said:
			
		

> *I also like the fact that Christie is starting to talk like us.*


She's been talking that way for years. When she came up to Pet to talk with troops during the Airborne disbandment, she certainly didn't blush at the language; in fact, she seemed to fit right in at Sassy's   ;D


----------



## observor 69 (17 Dec 2006)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> She's been talking that way for years. When she came up to Pet to talk with troops during the Airborne disbandment, she certainly didn't blush at the language; in fact, she seemed to fit right in at Sassy's   ;D



This bio might help explain what the lady is about:  http://www.rrj.ca/issue/1984/spring/4/

I hasten to add her Dad was a RCAF Sqn Ldr.

This is also good for a smile:
http://www.cda-cdai.ca/Munro_%20Award/Christie%20Blatchford%20speech07.pdf


----------



## gaspasser (17 Dec 2006)

I don't think she'd be standing either. From what I've read so far from Christie, she's one of "us" who writes well for the papers and has a great reputation to stand on when she fights back for the soldiers.
Beer on the table, always waiting for you, Christie.


----------



## Armymedic (17 Dec 2006)

Here are the comments to G&M post Mr Mansbridges article:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20061214.wmansbridge14/CommentStory/#comment521496




> Mansbridge: Covering all angles of Afghanistan
> PETER MANSBRIDGE
> 
> From Thursday's Globe and Mail
> ...



5 comments are not many...but I have never seen all commentors speak for the same side of the discussion.


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Dec 2006)

Here is John Doyle’s answer to Peter Mansbridge’s response to Doyle’s _critique_ of CBC’s coverage of military families.  It is from today’s (18 Dec 06) _Globe and Mail_ and is reproduced under the Fair Dealings provision of the Copyright Act:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20061218.wxdoyle18/BNStory/Entertainment/home 


> Offensive? How about fair criticism?
> 
> JOHN DOYLE
> From Monday's Globe and Mail
> ...



I agree, fully with:

•	_Neither Mansbridge nor CBC management can have a monopoly on opinion about CBC's coverage of the military mission in Afghanistan_ … [Canadians need] _vigorous questioning of how our public broadcaster covers key issues that matter to all Canadians, who fund the CBC with their tax dollars._  It appears however, that Doyle’s views on _vigorous questioning_ stop when they reach his musings.

•	_And it is also perfectly fair to raise the possibility that CBC might be following the lead of the minority Conservative government … CBC is in a beleaguered position in the present political environment. It needs to make a strong case for increased funding …_  Doyle knows that _media_ regularly scratches the belly of the ‘great and good’ and the rich and powerful, too.  Nowhere is this more prevalent than in the tiny _hothouse_ of the Canadian _arts_ community.

•	_… any time a country sends its men and women into combat and is willing to sacrifice lives, constant questioning of both the mission and the coverage of that mission by a publicly funded broadcaster is an absolute necessity._  So, where was Doyle when, for years, thousands and thousands of Canadians criticized the _mainstream media_, especially the CBC, for a perceived anti-military bias?

It seems to me  that Doyle’s reaction to one, tiny, maybe isolated _use_ of the military to _spice up_ CBC’s typically maudlin (here I do agree with Doyle with regard to the Edmonton families part of the 'story') coverage of the traditional ‘not home for the holidays’ story means that the anti-military sentiment in this country is strong, especially amongst the puffed up, latté sipping _chattering classes_ in loony-left Toronto.


----------



## observor 69 (18 Dec 2006)

Edward Campbell said:
			
		

> Here is John Doyle’s answer to Peter Mansbridge’s response to Doyle’s _critique_ of CBC’s coverage of military families.  It is from today’s (18 Dec 06) _Globe and Mail_ and is reproduced under the Fair Dealings provision of the Copyright Act:
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20061218.wxdoyle18/BNStory/Entertainment/home
> I agree, fully with:
> ...


----------



## George Wallace (18 Dec 2006)

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20061218.wxdoyle18/BNStory/Entertainment/home 


> Offensive? How about fair criticism?
> 
> JOHN DOYLE
> From Monday's Globe and Mail
> ...



I don't think you, Mr. Doyle, get the point.  It isn't Peter Mansbridge's sense of humour that is in question, but the insult you, John Doyle, made to the members and families of the CF that is in question.



> Neither Mansbridge nor CBC management can have a monopoly on opinion about CBC's coverage of the military mission in Afghanistan. Those "Your View" items from viewers that pop up on The National are a poor substitute for vigorous questioning of how our public broadcaster covers key issues that matter to all Canadians, who fund the CBC with their tax dollars.
> 
> It is perfectly fair to suggest that some of CBC Television's coverage of the military has verged on the maudlin and sentimental. If CBC-TV News carried out some vigorous, internal analysis of its own coverage, I'd be surprised if that point did not arise.



Again, who cares about the CBC programing?  It is about your insulting the members and families of the CF with your callus take on a CBC 'story'/broadcast.



> And it is also perfectly fair to raise the possibility that CBC might be following the lead of the minority Conservative government in its near idolatry of the military. CBC is in a beleaguered position in the present political environment. It needs to make a strong case for increased funding and it needs to prove that it serves a vital need.
> 
> The current government has made it crystal clear that it intends to raise the status of the military through increased funding that runs into the billions of dollars. And with the public divided on the merits of the mission in Afghanistan, the government's position is a potential political quagmire. (For heaven's sake, the Prime Minister is using the Afghan mission in a game of cat-and-mouse with the opposition parties about a possible election.) There is nothing outrageous in suggesting that CBC-TV News may have leaned too far in following the government's lead.



Mr. Doyle, this sounds a lot like a Leftist slam of the current Government policies.......well out of your league as an 'Entertainment Critic'.



> It is not "nonsense," as Mansbridge stated, and to dismiss it as such is the worst sort of witless arrogance. It is the duty of a responsible critic to raise the possibility of mistakes, if the critic feels the CBC has erred. And, believe me, I'm not the only one who feels that, on occasion, the CBC has erred in presenting what looks like cheerleading coverage of the military. A great many people were made uneasy by The National's hour-long special from a military base and use of the phrase "home front." Of the many hundreds of responses to last Wednesday's column, the majority of correspondents felt their unease about CBC had been articulated.



Nice to see that you so easily ignore the thousands who have been offended by your "error".  It would appear that you are a champion of the minority Left.



> CBC is entitled to be "proud" of its coverage of Afghanistan, as Mansbridge declared. It has done a great deal that is praiseworthy. But CBC's pride in itself is beside the point. CBC can pat itself on the head until the troops come home, but any time a country sends its men and women into combat and is willing to sacrifice lives, constant questioning of both the mission and the coverage of that mission by a publicly funded broadcaster is an absolute necessity.
> 
> Further, it is a fact that the idolization of the military is a key tactic used by autocratic governments anxious to gird the population into a unified stance in support of a multitude of issues and a single ideology. Militarism is not a concept I invented to attack the CBC. It is a fact of history and we can all learn something from being aware of it, including "the chief correspondent for CBC News and anchor of The National."
> 
> In the voluminous response to last Wednesday's column, I heard from several readers who grew up in countries under the rule of a military dictatorship. And to them, the public broadcaster's treatment of the military is an important signal. I called The National's sentimental treatment of the military "creepy." To others, who have direct experience of military dictatorships, it is downright ghoulish.



Mr. Doyle, once again you are being a "Political Commentator" rather than the "Entertainment Critic" you really are.  It would be interesting to inform you that the Canadian Military and that of some Despotic state are quite different, as is the Governing of Canada compared to a Communist, Socialist or Despotic State.  But as an "Entertainment Critic" it would appear that those subtleties are beyond your comprehension.



> In the end, what Peter Mansbridge's rebuttal also raises is an important point about the state of media criticism in Canada. There isn't any.



Your arrogance, Mr. Doyle, is amazing.



> Apart from the occasional column by Antonia Zerbisias in The Toronto Star, and the contributions of a small group of academics, largely working in obscurity, major Canadian media organizations, including newspapers, rarely face criticism or analysis. There is The Ryerson Review of Journalism, but that is written by students and, if the number of inquiries I receive is any indication, most of them are interested in writing about George Stroumboulopoulos and the CBC's attempt to offer cool news on The Hour.
> 
> Vigorous criticism of the media is necessary, whether Mansbridge likes it or not. Mansbridge appeared to be outraged by my column on The National's coverage of the military. If my point wasn't "nonsense," it was "offensive." Hello? If you're offended by criticism and analysis, you're in the wrong racket.
> 
> ...



Ah!  Only the Left have the story right.  Riiiiiight!  Stick to Entertainment, and leave the Political Commentary to the professionals.


----------



## Journeyman (18 Dec 2006)

> ....raises is an important point about *the state of media criticism in Canada. There isn't any.*


 Interesting point raised by....well, a media critic. 
I don't know why we're taking Doyle seriously if he obviously dismisses his own criticism


----------



## cplcaldwell (18 Dec 2006)

> I don't know why we're taking Doyle seriously if he obviously dismisses his own criticism



And with all due respect to other posters on this thread, 

that might just be the most lucid comment I have read yet....


----------



## observor 69 (18 Dec 2006)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Interesting point raised by....well, a media critic.
> I don't know why we're taking Doyle seriously if he obviously dismisses his own criticism



How about we include the entire quote:

In the end, what Peter Mansbridge's rebuttal also raises is an important point about the state of media criticism in Canada. There isn't any.

Apart from the occasional column by Antonia Zerbisias in The Toronto Star, and the contributions of a small group of academics, largely working in obscurity, major Canadian media organizations, including newspapers, rarely face criticism or analysis. There is The Ryerson Review of Journalism, but that is written by students and, if the number of inquiries I receive is any indication, most of them are interested in writing about George Stroumboulopoulos and the CBC's attempt to offer cool news on The Hour.


----------



## Danjanou (18 Dec 2006)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I don't know why we're taking Doyle seriously...



Agreed.

Like I said earlier he’s the frickin TV critic. I’m sure all we’re doing here is further inflating his already obese ego. I can just see him on the festive non denominational PC cocktail party run by the TO left wing elites this week. “Those uniformed Neanderthals are calling names over on their web site, oh and yes I’ll have another glass of Chardonnay.” 

He’s had his 15 minutes of fame, and then some; let him fade back into obscurity. 



Unless of course someone actually gets invited to one of those Rosedale or Annex shin digs then feels free to hand him a Christmas Throat Punch.  >


----------



## Infanteer (18 Dec 2006)

I wonder if Mr Doyle would have considered the media coverage of the Second World War creepy and militaristic?  His allusion of countries with dictatorships is a red herring and in extremely poor taste - if he's trying to make some connection between Chile under Pinochet and Canada today, he better make more of a case than soldiers on the news....  :


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Dec 2006)

This, from today’s (19 Dec 06) _Ottawa Citizen_ (reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act) should tell even Gilles Duceppe and the _Globe and Mail_’s John Doyle why a *combat operation* is a necessary precursor to _development_ and _diplomacy_ and why we need soldiers in Afghanistan.

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=368d29bb-a785-4669-9c7e-700155144307&k=15869 


> Taliban execute 26 male Afghans
> 
> Brian Hutchinson, CanWest News Service
> Published: Tuesday, December 19, 2006
> ...



It’s going to be a long, hard fight to make Afghanistan safe enough for the Afghan people to decide, for themselves and in their own way, how they shall govern themselves.  Maybe <shudder> they will decide, in the fullness of time and without being terrorized, that they need and want a conservative, even medieval Islamic theocracy.  We, Canadians, will be disappointed but if they make that decision freely then we will have done our primary _defence_ job and part of the _development_ job, too.  We will, however, have failed in our other primary, _diplomacy_, task because we will have failed to convince the Afghans that joining the modern, connected world is in their best interests – that will also represent a partial _development_ (education, etc) failure.

But, perhaps, John Doyle and the latté sippers in Yorkville think it’s just _picturesque_ that the Afghans practice _traditional_ methods of political discourse.  This is the sort of thing which Stéphane Dion’s _honourable withdrawal_ would make permanent.


----------



## observor 69 (19 Dec 2006)

Globe & Mail

Why the world loves Canadian TV

By JOHN DOYLE  

Tuesday, December 19, 2006 – Page R3 

First, my thanks to the many hundreds of readers who wrote in response to last Wednesday's column about The National's coverage of the military, Peter Mansbridge's rebuttal on Thursday, Christie Blatchford's column on Saturday and yesterday's column in response to Mansbridge.

It's clear that everyone, including members of the military and the media, see the issue of media coverage of the military and the mission in Afghanistan through their own prism. While the issue is serious, we can all lighten up too. It has been a fascinating few days of free-flowing opinion and while some people might like to turn the issue into a battle that's part of U.S.-style cultural warfare -- with insults and threats flying -- we are not living in George W. Bush's America. We carry on with our odd way of arguing, passionate and eccentric in our methods and views. I respectfully disagree with Christie Blatchford, who defended the CBC's coverage while admitting, admirably, that she had not been able to see the program I wrote about. And I don't carry a grudge against Pastor Mansbridge, who is often a fine advocate for public broadcasting and takes criticism and joking with aplomb.


----------



## George Wallace (19 Dec 2006)

What an idiot.  What does living or not living in George W. Bush's America have to do with the tripe that he wrote?  I can not for the life of me figure out what he means by making a statement about turning the issue into a battle that's part of U.S.-style cultural warfare.  I guess it is just another day for him to go on an Anti-America, Anti-George W. Bush Rant and get paid his little pittance of a wage from the giant G&M.  That man is so full of crap.


----------



## Kirkhill (19 Dec 2006)

Pluses George....


----------



## Infanteer (19 Dec 2006)

They should get some photos of those headless civilians and send them to Jack Layton with an invitation to come to Quetta for some round-table discussions with the Taliban....


----------



## rcrgruntsgirl (20 Dec 2006)

Reading this article made me sick. I was in the audience when they filmed the National at CFB Petawawa and I was very impressed with the articles. They are showing what is going on at home which shouldn't be a problem. Canadians need to know how the families at home are doing. Just like this week they are looking at the families left behind when a soldier has given the ultimate sacrifice. My husband was wounded 14 Oct 06 in the ambush that killed Sgt Tedford and Pte Williamson. This is real life, not just something on the t.v not affecting us back here. It's hit home for me already once, 8 memorials in 4 months, friends wounded and killed. It's hard on the soldiers over seas but the home front is also going thru the same tour, not knowing what is going to happen. You don't want to think about it, but the thought goes thru my head everyday, what if it's my husband killed? How would I handle it? Maybe I'm just rambling off, it is late and I don't sleep much. But even though I hate the news and there focus on the bad stuff, it's nice to see a change in the things they are reporting on, showing what goes on here and after you lose the one you love. As much as Canadians don't think it has to do with them here, they need to get real.


----------



## Roy Harding (20 Dec 2006)

rcrgruntsgirl said:
			
		

> ... . My husband was wounded 14 Oct 06 in the ambush that killed Sgt Tedford and Pte Williamson. ... Maybe I'm just rambling off, it is late and I don't sleep much. ...



You "ramble off" all you want, girl.

Good luck and Merry Christmas to you and yours.



Roy Harding


----------



## Colin Parkinson (21 Dec 2006)

When in doubt and nothing intelligent to say, pull out a Bush & US rant.   :


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Dec 2006)

I just noticed the ‘lead’ stories in the _hard news_ section where Blatchford works and the _Arts_ domain wherein we find John Doyle.

*News*:

•	Harper calls Hamas 'genocidal' – “Peace won't be achieved through dialogue with groups that aim to kill, PM declares”

•	Gates says he talked to Iraqi officials about more help – “The new defence chief is visiting Iraq with a high-level entourage in his first week in office to assess ways to calm growing violence in the country. President George W. Bush is considering sending thousands more U.S. troops, and is expected to unveil his new policy next month.”

•	Canada ranks No. 1 for economic strength – “BMO annual index compares G7 countries” 


*Arts*:

•	Extreme Makeover: The comics edition - “Yowza! Take a look at the new Betty and Veronica. They may be sexier, but their storylines will stick to 'the Archie Comics code of decency' “

•	Rosie tells Trump to ‘sit and spin' - “War of words erupts between The Donald and Rosie O'Donnell”

•	John Doyle – “The TV racket never sleeps … Even as we slouch into the holiday season, all grumpy about the gift shopping and giving, or relieved that the damn office actually closes down for a few days, television keeps going. Deals are made, backs are stabbed, pilot episodes are cast and breakdowns occur. Little wonder the rehab facilities go 24/7 all year long … The past few days have been busy ones in the U.S. TV racket. Don't think that because there hasn't been a new episode of Desperate Housewives or because Grey's Anatomy is in repeats that all of L.A. is on vacation.”

Now, will someone please tell me why anyone with the brains the gods gave to green peppers cares what John Doyle *’thinks'* about anything?  For gawd’s sakes, the man frets about TV sitcoms – in public.

Shame on me for adding to the undeserved attention we are paying to this, this … Oh, bloody hell!  What’s the right word?



Edit: typo - *’thinks'*


----------



## GAP (21 Dec 2006)

> What’s the right word?



IDIOT


----------



## 2-3-Bravo (21 Dec 2006)

Not the most educated article that this guy has wrote... here's what I passed on to him...

It's the *soldier* not the reporter who has given us the freedom of the press.
It's the *soldier* not the poet who has given us the freedom of speech.
It's the *soldier* not the campus organizer who has given us the freedom to demonstrate.
It's the *soldier* not the lawyer who has given us the right to a fair trial.
It's the *soldier* who salutes the flag,
who serves under the flag 
and whose coffin is draped by the flag 
who allows the protester to burn the flag.


----------



## ladybugmabj (21 Dec 2006)

he probably won't understand that!


----------



## a_majoor (22 Dec 2006)

Not everyone finds the CBC to have such a benign reputation:

http://darkbluetorytwo.blogspot.com/2006/12/its-typical-of-cbc-peter.html
http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Worthington_Peter/2006/12/21/2913140.html



> *It's typical of the CBC, Peter.*
> 
> Sun columnist Peter Worthington has taken the time to expose the CBC's coverage of the war in Afghanistan as the sham that it truly is.
> 
> ...


----------



## bilton090 (22 Dec 2006)

John Doyle lives in T.V land, that's the real world,all fuzzy and warm !. The rest of us live in the other world, were it's not nice ! they don't
kiss and make up on the next show !  :crybaby:

           Maybe John should get his nose out of the coke, and have some shut-the-f###-up coffee !


----------



## observor 69 (4 Jan 2007)

PRINT EDITION

TV criticism? It's a national disgrace



By JOHN DOYLE  

Thursday, January 4, 2007 – Page R3 



Yesterday, a letter arrived for me in the mail. It was addressed to "John Doyle, Scrotum of The Globe and Mail."

Inside, the scrawl that purported to be from a member of our armed forces took issue with some comments about CBC's coverage of the military and called me names. I seriously doubt if it was from a member of the military. They have more pith and vinegar in the insults.

Also yesterday, this section of The Globe published a fascinating piece by Hal Niedzviecki about bloggers who comment on culture. As Niedzviecki noted, much of what appears online, under the guise of comment about culture is childishly nasty, snide and, sometimes, absurdly ill-informed.

The arrival of that letter and Niedzviecki's article on the same day prompt me to consider the state of media and culture criticism in Canada today, especially as it relates to television. It being the start of a new year, it's appropriate to assess how the most important medium of our time is treated in this country. Frankly, TV and other media criticism is in an appalling state and it's a national disgrace.

This newspaper takes analysis and criticism of culture very seriously. It is part of The Globe and Mail's heritage and value as the newspaper of record. Few other newspapers or magazines offer serious journalism about the arts and entertainment areas, and television gets particularly poor treatment. The Toronto Sun recently laid off Bill Brioux, one this country's best, most cogent and shrewd writers about the TV racket. Like the CanWest chain of papers, the Sun chain appears to be retreating from consequential coverage of arts and entertainment.

Soon, the vast majority of Canadian newspapers will be awash in more drivel about Britney Spears and her underwear and generic wire-service articles about U.S. network and cable TV shows, written by people who are understandably clueless about Canadian TV and audiences. Canadian Press, thank goodness, exists, and in TV writer Lee-Anne Goodman has a first-rate reporter and observer of Canadian TV. Mind you, if you live in many Canadian cities, your local paper is more inclined to print some gee-whiz nonsense about some alleged Hollywood celebrity. Occasionally, the TV show being covered isn't even airing in Canada.

And don't tell me that consequential coverage takes place online. With the notable exception of screenwriter Denis McGrath's Dead Things on Sticks site and Diane Kristine's TV Eh? blog, most of what's written about Canadian TV online is garbage. McGrath's site is thoughtful, learned and provocative about creating Canadian TV, and Kristine's blog brings together news and notes that would otherwise be lost.

In the past few years, when I'm interviewed by journalism students, I'm frequently asked about the growth of online TV criticism. The students tend to think it's all very important because the Internet allows everyone to be a critic. This is nonsense.

Most of what appears as online commentary in Canada is written by the same dozen people, and they seem to be a miserable, bitter and twisted bunch. Often hiding behind anonymity, they spew venom and insults and spread inaccurate rumours and tattle. Sometimes they have the nerve to proclaim themselves to be "commentators" and assert their superiority to what they call the mainstream media, blithely ignoring the fact that newspapers and magazines publish work by people who actually put their names to what they wrote.

During the lockout of CBC staff in 2005, there was a sudden flowering of online commentary about the lockout and the CBC. Some of it made for fascinating reading, particularly on the CBC's future and its role in Canada. Many of those blogs disappeared when the lockout ended. Most of those that remained descended into the usual anonymously written, infantile nonsense. What passes for humour is often hilariously badly written hatred of real journalists.

In fact, what distinguishes online commentary about TV in Canada is the stew of envy and resentment in which most of the writers seem to exist. If I came across my name and saw myself described as "Scrotum of The Globe and Mail," I'd be impressed by the improvement in the articulation of insults.

Niedzviecki took the view that bloggers should remember that they are writing about real people and what they write has consequences, because the online commentary is actually read by the targets of vitriol. Me, I ignore most of it. If somebody cares to challenge what I write, they can write a letter to the editor, for publication.

Of course, it would be far better if there was more online media and TV criticism worth reading. There isn't, and as a country and a culture, we are poorer for the absence.

jdoyle@globeandmail.com


----------



## Colin Parkinson (4 Jan 2007)

But of course he is above been bitter and twisted or heaven forbid irrelevant. Sounds like he is feeling threatened by the existence of bloggers and feels that only a "properly trained journalist" can commnet of the drivel pumped out by the TV stations. The fact is that I would not ask a Norwegian parrot to suffer the indignity of having to Sh*t on his column. I suppose in his mind: "I whine, therefore I am."

 :


----------



## North Star (10 Jan 2007)

Note he did not respond to valid criticism of his article such as that by Peter Mansbridge.

Peter Worthington for the Order of Canada?


----------



## HDE (10 Jan 2007)

John appears to go on the premise that the rest of us are in awe of his intellectual horsepower and take what he says as gospel.  The reality, I think, is that most of us read what he writes, balance it against what we know or have read elsewhere and decide how valid his comments are.  One of the great things about the internet is that, if used carefully, it becomes dead simple to factcheck what commentators are saying.  Then there's the "newspaper of record",  " properly trained journalists" fluff.  I'd say he's living in the past when there weren't many alternatives to the G and M, CBC, etc and their people carried more weight.


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Jan 2007)

HDE said:
			
		

> John appears to go on the premise that the rest of us are in awe of his intellectual horsepower and take what he says as gospel.  The reality, I think, is that most a few of us read what he writes, balance it against what we know or have read elsewhere and decide how valid his comments are.  One of the great things about the internet is that, if used carefully, it becomes dead simple to factcheck what commentators are saying.  Then there's the "newspaper of record",  " properly trained journalists" fluff.  I'd say he's living in the past when there weren't many alternatives to the G and M, CBC, etc and their people carried more weight.



I beg to differ, see my edit, above and this - http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/54573/post-500118.html#msg500118 - at the top of this page.

I cannot fathom why anyone bothers to read any of the tripe he offers.  Does anyone really care about sitcoms?  His intellectual 'weight' is a negative quantity - in fact, flighty is the word that comes to mind.


----------



## HDE (10 Jan 2007)

Edward 

  I see your point.


----------

