# "An unknown soldier" G&M Article on the Globe and Mail



## kilekaldar (28 Oct 2006)

The Globe and Mail just posted a featured article on Private Mark Graham. It's pretty much a tabloid hack job.
I was going to post the following on the article's responce board, but it's been locked after 5 posts. So I sent it to the "Letters to the Editor" instead

here is the link to the article
 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20061027.cover28/BNStory/Front/home

Here is the e-mail I sent

"I'm a soldier. I was in Mark's class in Basic training, and was posted at the same base and I am now in Afghanistan on the same Roto as Mark was. 
I cannot claim to have known the man well, but I respected him, and thought him to be a fine man and soldier. And that is how I will remember Mark, how I will honor his sacrifice. No amount of cheap, tabloid journalism from the Globe &Mail can tarnish his memory. Yes, he was human and no doubt messed up a great many things, as we all do. But that matters little. For as a soldier I know something that the reporter who wrote this article cannot phantom; once you put on the uniform you leave your old life, and start anew, it’s a second chance to do it right. Among soldiers it doesn’t mater what you did as a civilian, what maters is what you do once you signed that doted line. And Mark showed himself to be a great soldier.
That this newspaper found it necessary to dig up every dirty little detail of his life and hold it up for the world to see just so they could sell a few more copies, or worse to further some political agenda, is horrendous and makes me sick. There used to be a time when we honored our war dead, now apparently the Globe &Mail disgraces them in public for profit. Shame on you."


----------



## GAP (28 Oct 2006)

+1


----------



## captjtq (28 Oct 2006)

+1


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (28 Oct 2006)

I notice comments have been shut down after only five people had submitted remarks...  Just sayin'


----------



## paracowboy (28 Oct 2006)

sickening. 

Yeah, he was running: to the fight. Where was reporter-boy? 

Simply despicable.


----------



## niner domestic (28 Oct 2006)

I would strongly advocate that if anyone has issues with this particular article and it's overall accuracy and/or fairness in affording the subject matter an opportunity to defend themselves, then to write to the Ontario Press Council and lodge a formal complaint.  

 http://www.ontpress.com/about/index.asp

"Test the accuracy of information and all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error. Deliberate distortion is never permissible.
Diligently seek out subjects of news stories to give them the opportunity to respond to allegations of wrongdoing." found at: 
http://www.ontpress.com/codes/ethics.asp

I find the entire article distasteful and cannot help but draw attention to the coincidence that it appears on the day the CPA has declared an anti-war demonstration day.  This reeks of ulterior motive in both the editoral staff and journalists.


----------



## mz589 (28 Oct 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> sickening.
> 
> Yeah, he was running: to the fight. Where was reporter-boy?
> 
> Simply despicable.




I think you guys are overreacting on this.

The article chronicles the struggles the guy had to contend with in his life,  it paints him as a human being..flawed..like we all are. 

After reading the article I don't have a negative opinion of the man, quite the contrary. The struggles he faced made him who he really was, a fluff piece wouldn't bring that to the surface. After hearing that he was a former olympian it might suggest that he had an easy time of things when the exact opposite is true.

The article doesn't diminsh the sacrifice he made in the slightest, IMO it amplifies it.


----------



## Pte_Martin (28 Oct 2006)

I think this part is funny 
"His fellow soldiers were younger men who had given up dead-end jobs in fast-food joints and paper mills to join the lowliest ranks of the military. Pte. Graham had trained alongside men who set world records."

So now the authour knows what jobs we quit to join the CF, I know lots of people who quit really good jobs if not better paying jobs to join the CF.


----------



## paracowboy (28 Oct 2006)

Infantry_ said:
			
		

> So now the authour knows what jobs we quit to join the CF, I know lots of people who quit really good jobs if not better paying jobs to join the CF.


well, of course! Soldiers are the intellectually-stunted, morally-ambiguous detritus of society, don't you know? The only reason anyone enlists is because they're too stupid to get a REAL job, or are running from the Law.

Despicable. The entire thing is an affront to better men than this clown who professes to be a journalist.


----------



## armyvern (28 Oct 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> well, of course! Soldiers are the intellectually-stunted, morally-ambiguous detritus of society, don't you know? The only reason anyone enlists is because they're too stupid to get a REAL job, or are running from the Law.



So true. Their bias is really showing. Just look at the amount of post-secondary graduates we have serving today....in the ranks...not as officers, this statement in the article just make my stomach churn. It simply disgusts me. 



			
				paracowboy said:
			
		

> Despicable. The entire thing is an affront to better men than this clown who professes to be a journalist.



I prefer "paprazzi" for clowns like this. Relentlessly searching for that one shot or soundbite that will garner them the most coverage. Fk it if the facts are wrong and they tarnish good people.


----------



## Pearson (28 Oct 2006)

Im sory, cud u say that again with smaller words and piktures and stuf? Momma always said....


----------



## 3rd Horseman (28 Oct 2006)

I found the article to be poor with flashes of brilliance. If the reporter had left out the low blow personnel stuff about past failures it would have been brilliant. 

Mark Graham's sins of the past were washed away the minute he died serving his country so valiantly, Shame on that reporter and the editor for letting that personnel crap destroy a otherwise very well written article.


----------



## Pearson (29 Oct 2006)

The comment section is up again......
Deep breaths, and ....

Comment #22

"The more I discover, the more I wonder why many of these soldiers are given guns AT ALL. Society would be outraged if anyone handed a similarly  emotionally damaged person a gun and was also given training it its use. OH! His sports background!, Well! That trumps everything!? Sports has anyways been credentials when bona fides ones were missing or couldn't be lived up to in any manner. Nothing new, really, in this story. The army is partly culpable in his death. He should never have been sent into action. So much for boot camp, psys ops and this tootled 'Creme de la creme'. Seems as if he had more of a playgirl centerfold audition. Picked for the bod, not the brain. Dime a dozen. Sickening! If everyone entering the army has a prickly past, why not call it the Canadian Circus, the Clown Division? VERY disturbing article, but let's not blame the reporter. Better to take a good look at this thing called Canadian army and those that run the show. "

Can he be serious? This is the attitude that exists in some Canadian's minds? Dear God. 
If he does not trust us with weapons, I suppose we will have to wait for him to toe the line.


----------



## Pte_Martin (29 Oct 2006)

Wow i wouldn't even know what to reply with that! How could someone be so stupid and ignorant?


----------



## tux_teh_crusher (29 Oct 2006)

send this reporter overseas...


----------



## Good2Golf (29 Oct 2006)

Infantry_ said:
			
		

> Wow i wouldn't even know what to reply with that! How could someone be so stupid and ignorant?



We'll see if my "as polite as I could possibly be" response to #22 is posted...dang that pissed me off!  


update:
...apparently it did...  I thought it wouldn't make it through the "right-wing removal" filter...  ;D


----------



## 043 (29 Oct 2006)

I think it was an excellent article. Sadly, victims are usually glamorized in death. This reporter did seem to dig rather deeply but then again, that is his job. The truth hurts when you know the individual and the pain of loss is still at hand. Pte Graham, was no doubt a loyal and dedicated Royal. Remember him, how you knew him.

Chimo


----------



## vonGarvin (29 Oct 2006)

From a cursory scan of the posts about that article, they seem mostly to be critical of the author and the G and M itself.  All I know is that if you dig deep on ANYONE, you will find dirt.  That's part of being human.


----------



## daftandbarmy (30 Oct 2006)

I wasn't too happy to see this article on the front page while an article on the recent award of the valour decorations was relegated to page something-teen in the same issue. But the old G&M must know their audience. I guess this means that the National Post now rises to the status of 'quality paper' in comparison.


----------



## RHFC_piper (30 Oct 2006)

I'm afraid I have to come to the defence of the reporter here (just a little);

My self and some of the other wounded (who were willing) who knew Mark, and / or the circumstances of his death, contributed to this article... so a lot of the facts are confirmed.  Granted, the presentaion seemed kind of... well... tabloid... and there were some facts that could have been omited (for the sake of face), But the article was, I felt, generally well written.  

When I first talked to Mr. Greg McArthur about this article (well before an actuall interview), he had already done quite a bit of research into Marks past, and had been contacting everyone from family to ex girlfriends.  Mark did have many strange facets to his past, but when you think about it, don't we all?

What I think Mr. McArthur was trying to convey is that Mark, even with his exceptional Olympic background, was still just a man, struggling with his past and trying to contend with his present and future.  

I'm only assuming, but I think Mr. McArthur wanted to go further with this, but ran short of time. When we talked, his ambition for telling Marks story was outstanding, and, I must say, when I first read the article today I was dissapointed... But, after reading it again and thinking about it, I don't think it is as bad as it could have been.

What we need to remember is:
1) We can't always expect our soldiers to have nothing but exceptional and exemplary pasts, we are all just human.
2) The road to hell is paved with good intentions. I'm pretty sure Mr. McArthur had good intentions, as he seemed to the many times we spoke.
3) The path a story for media takes from writer to print is fraught with peril in the form of restrictions to size, editorialization, and sensationalism.  (Makes me wonder how many times his story was rejected or rewriten to appease his editorial chain of command)

For every word of usefull information the media supplies, I'm sure a whole novel of 'unentertaining' yet equally useful information is deleted.  The media is like any other indusry; they're in it to sell a product and make money. If they had to, by law, state the whole truth and nothing but the truth, then there wouldn't be tabloids like the weekly world news.
Conserving what truth remains through the entertainment is probably the hardest task of a writer, and his only tool in this battle is to turn facts into entertainment... If this was uncommon, even documentaries would be as boring watching wounds close... and probably as disgusting.

So, before I turn this in to another novel sized rant, I just want you to consider what a story like this would reveal about your past and how you would be judged... then think about what you have learned about Mark from this article and consider what was probably left out for the sake of space, time and entertainment.  

I won't pretend to be Marks best friend, but I consider him as much of a brother as any other soldier in the CF, and when I chose to help Mr. McArthur with his quest I did so hoping to learn some things about Mark I didn't know as well as help others to do the same.  

As much as people dislike how this article portrays Mark, I think we are all overlooking the main points; He was a soldier, an athlete, a friend, a father and a great Canadian who died in the service of the country... But he was also a human with real problems and hardships to overcome through out his life.

No matter what is said about his past, he will always be loved, he will always be missed, and he will always be remembered by those who knew him.  If this article has done nothing else, it has atleast provided the human element to our serving men and women.

Again, sorry for the rant.


----------



## PiperDown (30 Oct 2006)

So,

I guess it takes years and years to prepare for a tour in this day and age.. Because, if you happen to be killed in action, every dark secret and bit of dirty laundry in your past is giong to be dragged up for a sensational article.

My biggest fear going overseas now is not getting wounded or killed.. Its what is going to be written about me in the globe and mail.

I better spill my guts now..

yes.. I am ashamed of it.. but, yes.. I did cheat on a girlfriend in the 80's...and yeah, I got a couple of speeding tickets too. I once took the bus in highschool and didnt pay. I forgot to call my mom on her last birthday.
I am sure there is more.. but, a "good" reporter will be able to dig up the rest of the dirt.


----------



## Good2Golf (30 Oct 2006)

RHFC-piper, fully agree...to add a bit, though, I think McArthur kept on going after his own "intent" was made....kind of like the way that sitcoms keep banging away with canned laughter when something funny (or not) happens...push it too far, and it ceases to be funny any more.  I think McArthur made his point about Mark, but then carried on more and more until, for many, it came across more as, albeit unintended, an attack on Mark's character.

My biggest difficulty was when I read the comments to the article...I realise that you and I and others serve to protect citizens' rights to their own opinion, but AYE FRICKIN CARUMBA, some folks are so far out of it that they're in the next solar system...

G2G


----------



## RHFC_piper (30 Oct 2006)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> RHFC-piper, fully agree...to add a bit, though, I think McArthur kept on going after his own "intent" was made....kind of like the way that sitcoms keep banging away with canned laughter when something funny (or not) happens...push it too far, and it ceases to be funny any more.  I think McArthur made his point about Mark, but then carried on more and more until, for many, it came across more as, albeit unintended, an attack on Mark's character.



Yes... Exactly.   But, I don't think the onus of this article rests equally on the editors as well.  Mr. McArthur most likely wrote more positive points about Mark, but they may have been edited out as positive doesn't sell... Negaive and scandal sells very well.

I only defend Mr. McArthur because he seemed to be a man of good character.  I think this article (and how it has been edited) has done an equal discredit to his character as people perceived it has done to Marks.  

But I do agree with your analogy; 'beating a dead horse' works to... But I'd hope that for every negative point about Mark that made it to print, there's atleast one positive that had ended up on the 'cutting room' floor.  Like I've said numerouse times; Mark was an outstanding person, no matter what is written or how it is perceived. 




			
				Good2Golf said:
			
		

> My biggest difficulty was when I read the comments to the article...I realise that you and I and others serve to protect citizens' rights to their own opinion, but AYE FRICKIN CARUMBA, some folks are so far out of it that they're in the next solar system...



Yeah.. No Doubt.  I can't even recall what some of the comments were, and I wouldn't even want to repost them, but I know how they made me feel; Angry and dissapointed in people.  The Budhist in me tries to believe that there is inherent good in all humanity, but some people are just evil and mean spirited... some people just lack compassion, and would be the first to gripe about it if they had lost a loved one.

I was thoroughly disgusted by some of the comments to the point where I would like to physically put those people in the same place as Marks family, by taking away some one close to them, then saying the same things about their loved ones for all to see... and as harsh as that sounds, unless something like that happens to them, they will never understand. (BTW, I would never do that, so don't even think it... that would just be bad Karma)

Anyway... I just keep ranting... So I'll stop.

Cheers,

Piper


----------



## mom of two soldiers (30 Oct 2006)

Thank  you all for your thoughts and comments in regards to our son Mark. They have been very healing and very supportive to us. We too
 thought Mr. McArthur had grasped the issues well and were surprised by some of the comments and underlying beliefs. 
yMark was a very well loved son and father. He had his own ways and his own struggles - many not of his own making. He loved his job in the CF and felt he had discovered a niche were he could use his brains and his body in a useful and productive way -  something he had never had before - and something that the article did not seem to be able to address. 
Again thank you for all your positive comments. 

Our blessings to those injured and to their families. To the rest of our new family - the miltitary community - thank you. 

Dad and mom of two soldiers


----------



## probum non poenitet (30 Oct 2006)

mom of two soldiers said:
			
		

> Our blessings to those injured and to their families. To the rest of our new family - the miltitary community - thank you.



Your dignity is extremely moving.   

God bless you, and your children.


----------



## Skaha (31 Oct 2006)

. .  the reporter, who gave up a legitimate, honest career to shill for the Hope & Bail so they could sell advertising space, worked very hard to distort the truth and juxtapose facts so that the story supported a predetermined anti-military position of the liberal hacks who populate the Canadian mainstream media.


----------

