# CBC "interactive casualty map"



## Kilo_302 (15 Nov 2006)

I don't know if any of you guys have seen this, but the CBC news website has what it calls an "interactive Afghanistan map" that shows the locations and circumstances of Canadian casualties in Afghanistan. I don't see what the point of such a feature is. I could maybe understand it if they included NATO casualties, Taliban casualties, civilian casualties, sites of major engagments etc, but to focus entirely on Canadian deaths seems to be a bit morbid. The whole thing feels like a crude video game, and it's pretty offensive. To be fair, some other features are included such as Kandahar itself, some geographical features etc. But it appears that these were added to avoid criticism. The sidebar has Canadian casualties listed by date, leaving no doubt as to the focus of the map. I have to admit, I rely on the CBC for my television/online news in conjunction with BBC as well as some American sources, but as far as military reporting goes, this is over the line. CBC should be ashamed to have included a feature on it's website that serves absolutely no purpose whatsoever, other than to exploit the deaths of Canadian soldiers.


----------



## MikeM (15 Nov 2006)

Interesting as well to see the locations of our FOBs.. they aren't hidden or anything, but I would have thought thats something the general public doesn't need to know.


----------



## Journeyman (15 Nov 2006)

MikeM said:
			
		

> Interesting as well to see the locations of our FOBs.. they aren't hidden or anything, but *I would have thought thats something the general public doesn't need to know*.


When you go out of your way to keep info from the public, that the bad guys obviously know, you only feed the conspiracy trolls. 

It's just another part of that tax-paying, oversight-of-government, transparent democracy...thing.


Edit for clarity: I was referring to the Taliban as "the bad guys," not the CBC....this time


----------



## littlebug (15 Nov 2006)

The map was posted just before Remembrance Day - it appeared then to be part of their way of remembering and honouring all soldiers.  I think that is why it focused only on the Canadian deaths, but I could be wrong.


----------



## warrickdll (15 Nov 2006)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> I don't know if any of you guys have seen this, but the CBC news website has what it calls an "interactive Afghanistan map" that shows the locations and circumstances of Canadian casualties in Afghanistan. I don't see what the point of such a feature is. I could maybe understand it if they included NATO casualties, Taliban casualties, civilian casualties, sites of major engagments etc, but to focus entirely on Canadian deaths seems to be a bit morbid. The whole thing feels like a crude video game, and it's pretty offensive. To be fair, some other features are included such as Kandahar itself, some geographical features etc. But it appears that these were added to avoid criticism. The sidebar has Canadian casualties listed by date, leaving no doubt as to the focus of the map. I have to admit, I rely on the CBC for my television/online news in conjunction with BBC as well as some American sources, but as far as military reporting goes, this is over the line. CBC should be ashamed to have included a feature on it's website that serves absolutely no purpose whatsoever, other than to exploit the deaths of Canadian soldiers.




Not that I don't see your point (or CBC's bias) - but I think it's a good idea, and I would like to see this done (with even more information) for Canada's previous casualties.


----------



## a_majoor (15 Nov 2006)

Honouring the dead is probably the last thing on a CBC producer's mind, influencing the public opinion against the war is uppermost.

I looked at the map, but "Truth" wasn't marked anywhere..........


----------



## Fishbone Jones (15 Nov 2006)

Link anyone?


----------



## NL_engineer (15 Nov 2006)

http://www.cbc.ca/news/interactives/gmaps/afghanistan/


----------



## geo (15 Nov 2006)

Hmmm.... not there anymore


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (15 Nov 2006)

Geo

Link worked for me...appears it's back.


----------



## NL_engineer (15 Nov 2006)

It works, I posted it 15 min ago after I found it.


----------



## Mike Baker (15 Nov 2006)

I like it, since it shows what our soldiers fight through every day.


----------



## tabernac (15 Nov 2006)

Well they seemed to have forgotten about Sgt. Short, Cpl. Beerenfenger and Cpl. Murphy.  : 




			
				Michael Baker said:
			
		

> I like it, since it shows what our soldiers fight through every day.


How so?


----------



## armyvern (15 Nov 2006)

cheeky_monkey said:
			
		

> Well they seemed to have forgotten about Sgt. Short, Cpl. Beerenfenger and Cpl. Murphy.  :



My oh my, indeed they have.

Lest We Forget.

Cpl Jamie Murphy - 27 Jan 2004 - Suicide Bomber
Sgt Robert Short - 02 Oct 2003 - Mine Strike
Cpl Robbie Beerenfenger - 02 Oct 2003 - Mine Strike

Now I realize that the CBC map is entitled "Canadian Casualties Around Khandahar," and that these 3 soldiers were killed in the Kabul area, but at least a mention of their passing and sacrifice would be appropriate.


----------



## Mike Baker (15 Nov 2006)

cheeky_monkey said:
			
		

> How so?


We can see Panjwayi, where many soldiers were injured, an some killed.


----------



## The Bread Guy (15 Nov 2006)

The Librarian said:
			
		

> My oh my, indeed they have.
> 
> Lest We Forget.
> 
> ...



It's actually VERY easy - I've done similar maps myself for work using 
http://quikmaps.com

Maybe we should start using the "Send Your Feedback" on the page - I'll try, and see what happens....


----------



## Kilo_302 (16 Nov 2006)

We may not even have to do that. CBC monitors this website pretty closely. Its the only one in Canada that brings together soldiers, ex-soldiers and and military "enthusiasts" on such a scale. Since this stuff is so foreign to CBC you can bet they get interns to check this site for what the "real military" POV is. The ytoo have to get down in the dirt sometimes


----------



## tabernac (16 Nov 2006)

Michael Baker said:
			
		

> We can see Panjwayi, where many soldiers were injured, an some killed.



A semi-detailed satellite picture does NOT tell of the mission our soldiers are engaged in, nor does it does not tell us where in the region the mission has the most support. 
Most Canadians can only guess what kind of hell they have to fight through, and even then they will never be able to fathom the troops' sacrafices.


----------



## Dog (17 Nov 2006)

I don't see why anyone here should take offense at a casualty map... I don't see that it's such a big deal. When I was at Meaford there was a map very similiar to that at the entrance to the mess, and in between the set of front doors to the North barracks. No one made a stink about it and declared "I'm offended!"

...of course, Meaford is a combat training base... so being offended by a map meant you didn't go there if you were overly sensitive.


----------



## kilahara (17 Nov 2006)

The Librarian said:
			
		

> My oh my, indeed they have.
> 
> Lest We Forget.
> 
> ...



Zoom out three levels.


----------



## armyvern (17 Nov 2006)

kilahara said:
			
		

> Zoom out three levels.



Well my, isn't that duckie?


----------



## exsemjingo (18 Nov 2006)

Dog said:
			
		

> I don't see why anyone here should take offense at a casualty map... I don't see that it's such a big deal. When I was at Meaford there was a map very similiar to that at the entrance to the mess, and in between the set of front doors to the North barracks. No one made a stink about it and declared "I'm offended!"
> 
> ...of course, Meaford is a combat training base... so being offended by a map meant you didn't go there if you were overly sensitive.


Was the Meaford map used as an argument against the mission?  That's what the CBC is doing.  Otherwise, we would see more news stories about the people our soldiers died for.  We're not jut coloring in borders on a map.


----------



## Dog (20 Nov 2006)

Unlikey that it was used as an argument against the mission.... IIRC, it was just an info map of how who had died where. Of course you never really stop to look at it while you're there.... as a Candidate Under Normal Training... you rarely have time to stop and check it out.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (20 Nov 2006)

[quote 

Edit for clarity: I was referring to the Taliban as "the bad guys," not the CBC....this time    
[/quote]

thanks for clarifying it can be a murky line.


----------



## geo (21 Nov 2006)

Harumph, body counts!.... it was a bad idea back in the days of Viet Nam and it`s still a bad idea - IMHO

Might I suggest that the CBC map should be overlaid with other information.
Afghan population centres(and living body counts), Schools, PRT reconstruction projects planned, initiated, completed.....

Without showing what has been accomplished, the map really does not present any worthwhile info.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (21 Nov 2006)

Well they wouldn't want to set a precedent now would they?


----------



## NL_engineer (21 Nov 2006)

geo said:
			
		

> Harumph, body counts!.... it was a bad idea back in the days of Viet Nam and it`s still a bad idea - IMHO
> 
> Might I suggest that the CBC map should be overlaid with other information.
> Afghan population centres(and living body counts), Schools, PRT reconstruction projects planned, initiated, completed.....
> ...



Showing the above information would defeat their reasons for the map (sway public support).


----------



## warpig (22 Nov 2006)

Quite the CBC Bash we have going here. Tell me, Colin P and Kelo-302, aside from your opinions unsubstantiated by any facts, what exactly is wrong with the way the CBC has laid out where our troops have fallen? And my second question would be do you have the same opinion of the maps used by MacLean’s or Saturday Night to show where contemporary battles involving Canadian troops dying were for the people back home? 

For those who really feel threatened or revolted by the CBC map, I would like to put their opinion into perspective.
http://www.obleek.com/iraq/

That is truly thought provoking.


----------



## geo (23 Nov 2006)

Warpig, I think the obleek.com map of iraq is more significant in that is shows the location of the fighting without going into too great a detail of each and every death.

I think the CBC map needs more for it to mean anything.  Highlighting a body count without providing some info about what is going on is only sharpeing one side of the knife.


----------



## MedCorps (23 Nov 2006)

Thought provoking.

No kidding... 

MC


----------



## exsemjingo (23 Nov 2006)

The CBC carries the air of objectivity, but only so far as that allows them to hide their bias.  We pick on the CBC because their funding comes from taxpayers of all political stripes, but they only cater to certain left-leaning ones.
One can make information say something particular without actually changing it.  The most popular argument against the missions in Afghanistan and Iraq is that they cost soldiers' lives.  Naturally, those are the statistics shown most prominently.  The networks know they have detractors, so they are very careful not to make any explicit commentary on what they show.
The message is simple and never has to be said on-air: pull out the troops, and the disturbing little dots stop appearing.  Further consequences do not have to be explored, because the target audience does not do any further thinking.

Otherwise, we would see maps of Afghanistan and Iraq showing schools opened, free ideas expressed, women liberated, and democratic votes cast.


----------



## warpig (23 Nov 2006)

Saying that the CBC only concentrates on our casualties is quite inaccurate, there Exsemjingo. But if the map can be criticized for doing that, surely that is small potatoes? There should be more info as to what exactly we’ve been able to accomplish in the way of CIMIC programs, but hasn’t that been covered by the CBC in the past? In fact, they cover it whenever they can, but as we speak, there is a significant drop in our humanitarian efforts, because of the Anti-Nato/Nationalist forces efforts. THAT has been covered, and commented on, in detail by al the major news gatherers. 
This map was very hard to find, after the link wouldn’t work for me at my office, due to firewall issues. I did a lot of looking on the CBC website and didn’t actually get to see it until I got home and used my own computer. It’s just my opinion but a lot of people here have more than just a little bit of CBC animosity going on this issue. I will say flat out that the CBC isn’t populated by the same sort of people most of you are talking to on a daily basis. Neither is a lot of our national institutions. That is not inherent bias, just the very average lack of intimate knowledge that is a fact of Canadian Society in general. 

If people want to show specific CBC bias against this mission, I invite them to post it. Frankly, I don’t expect to see any posted.


----------



## exsemjingo (24 Nov 2006)

Fair enough.  I'd invite readers of this thread to post examples of pro-military pieces from the CBC, as well as other stories with a positive conservative tilt.


----------



## HItorMiss (24 Nov 2006)

http://s81.photobucket.com/albums/j207/Armycoin/?action=view&current=1-1.flv

There is a fairly unbiased piece. Seems to be at the very leats not leaning any which way.

Careful what you wish for EX points one way or the other can always be found


*EDIT: To add more content


----------



## Colin Parkinson (24 Nov 2006)

warpig said:
			
		

> Saying that the CBC only concentrates on our casualties is quite inaccurate, there Exsemjingo. But if the map can be criticized for doing that, surely that is small potatoes? There should be more info as to what exactly we’ve been able to accomplish in the way of CIMIC programs, but hasn’t that been covered by the CBC in the past? In fact, they cover it whenever they can, but as we speak, there is a significant drop in our humanitarian efforts, because of the Anti-Nato/Nationalist forces efforts. THAT has been covered, and commented on, in detail by al the major news gatherers.
> This map was very hard to find, after the link wouldn’t work for me at my office, due to firewall issues. I did a lot of looking on the CBC website and didn’t actually get to see it until I got home and used my own computer. It’s just my opinion but a lot of people here have more than just a little bit of CBC animosity going on this issue. I will say flat out that the CBC isn’t populated by the same sort of people most of you are talking to on a daily basis. Neither is a lot of our national institutions. That is not inherent bias, just the very average lack of intimate knowledge that is a fact of Canadian Society in general.
> 
> If people want to show specific CBC bias against this mission, I invite them to post it. Frankly, I don’t expect to see any posted.



Gee that's what they said about the BBC to  :


----------



## warpig (3 Dec 2006)

Sorry to be delinquent in replying to the thread. As I said, I didn't see any examples of bias CBC reporting, because frankly there isn't any to post. Nice work out there. 

As for pro-Conservative Values/military, obviously you've never heard on CBC Radio or watched the commentary of Rex Murphy. Didn't catch George Stroumboulopoulos' airtime with the CDS this month? Rick Mercer was there for the CBC doing an Xmas show while I was there, but I guess you didn't watch it. Sorry guys, but the CBC has had more imbedded journalists and had more coverage of the Mission that the other Canadian News services. Again, we'll call  this subject dead from YOUR unsupported viewpoint or you can kindly provide evidence.


----------



## onecat (3 Dec 2006)

warpig said:
			
		

> Sorry to be delinquent in replying to the thread. As I said, I didn't see any examples of bias CBC reporting, because frankly there isn't any to post. Nice work out there.
> 
> As for pro-Conservative Values/military, obviously you've never heard on CBC Radio or watched the commentary of Rex Murphy. Didn't catch George Stroumboulopoulos' airtime with the CDS this month? Rick Mercer was there for the CBC doing an Xmas show while I was there, but I guess you didn't watch it. Sorry guys, but the CBC has had more imbedded journalists and had more coverage of the Mission that the other Canadian News services. Again, we'll call  this subject dead from YOUR unsupported viewpoint or you can kindly provide evidence.



Warpig, you are right in that the CBC has more coverage but that coverage is baised and is based on anti-mission, anti-military  ideas.  Its my opinion, but if you watch the CBC and I have, there questions are directed to create doubt and lower support for the mission to keep Canadians thinking this a Bush mission.  But then I'm also of the opinion of that CBC is very pro-Liberal party and directs it s coverage to that aim as well,very much the Toronto star.

No Media outlet is un-baised and I'n glad that Cf and the mission get coverage, its just important to note the coverage though the CBC is baised against it and directs all coverage to fit Liberal party policies and what makes them look good.


----------



## Strike (3 Dec 2006)

> No Media outlet is un-baised and I'n glad that Cf and the mission get coverage, its just important to note the coverage though the CBC is baised against it and directs all coverage to fit Liberal party policies and what makes them look good.



Prime example -- Most of Rick Mercer's rants!  Check them out on his web site for proof.  The only time he was anti-Liberal was either just before or just after the last election, but it was one rant only.


----------



## exsemjingo (5 Dec 2006)

warpig said:
			
		

> Sorry to be delinquent in replying to the thread. As I said, I didn't see any examples of bias CBC reporting, because frankly there isn't any to post. Nice work out there.
> 
> Again, we'll call  this subject dead from YOUR unsupported viewpoint or you can kindly provide evidence.


So where is your evidence on the contrary?  Obvious things do not need substantive evidence, but that's not to say I don't have examples.  The expensive Tommy Douglas miniseries they produced was pretty stilted, but we'll never have full details because it cannot be aired again for libel reasons.  "The Nature of Things" with David Suzuki is pretty far to the left, as are the Trudeau specials they air.

Other than that, Rick Mercer lost his edge when he became spokesman for the One Tonne Challenge.


----------



## warpig (5 Dec 2006)

Guys, this isn’t a debate on the Liberal Bias at the CBC. The whole premises of slagging the CBC interactive Map was that it and the CBC coverage of the War was bias. So far slagging environment shows and Tommy Douglas movies (excuse me if I’m wrong but what does politics in Weyburn Saskatchewan in the Dirty Thirties have to do with Afghanistan??) and saying Rick Mercer doesn’t slag the Liberals enough is NOT repeat NOT evidence that the CBC has been bias in it’s Afghanistan coverage. Sorry.

I have no problem with people holding general opinions regarding the CBC. Your opinion is formed and frankly why should I bother changing it, as evidenced by some of the comments. You may even have a point, but is it the point of this thread? Hardly. The CBC has focused a lot of correspondents and energy to cover the War, the interactive map is not evidence of a bias because it shows casualties where they fall, and there hasn’t been any substantive evidence posted so far. Again, if there is a bias, why don’t you show it to us? I think the coverage is fare.

Now, that being said, I should think it comes as no surprise that I happen to like the CBC. Hey, they still let Don Cherry have a mike! It’s just my personal preference but then that’s why we call Canada a free society.


----------

