# The media takes up our quarrel, on behalf of the foe.



## Edward Campbell (30 Oct 2006)

This, from one of our (very bloody few) favourite journalists Christie Blatchford, was in today’s _Globe and Mail_ and it is reproduced here under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20061030.wxblatchford30/BNStory/National/home 


> Losing the PR war at home and abroad
> 
> CHRISTIE BLATCHFORD
> From Monday's Globe and Mail
> ...



I know we have discussed the valour decoration and the 28 Oct demonstrations elsewhere but I want to focus on something different, and, CAUTION, this is a bit of a rant:

The Canadian media has _taken up the quarrel_ but they have done so on behalf of the foe.

The coverage of the 28 Oct demonstrations was so over the top, so uncritical as to be propaganda rather than reporting:

There were demonstrations in 37 cities – Quick! Name Canada’s 37th largest city.  No?  How about the 27th largest?  The 17th largest?  Let us be charitable and agree that several hundred paraded in Toronto and a few hundred in many (just some?) of the others – maybe 5,000 Canadians, out of 30 million, oppose the Afghan mission enough to complain – significantly less than the  number of soldiers who have served there?  That’s news?  

There were (according to the Ottawa CTV news report) several thousand people at the Kingston Garrison’s Freedom of the City parade on the same day.  It is likely that as many people came out in one small Canadian city to honour the troops as attended all the demonstrations in 37 Canadian cities.  The ‘story’ which should have been reported was: *“Canadians ignore Canadian Peace Alliance, Jack Layton, organized labour and Muslim groups’ protests.”*

Consider the attention paid to Francisco Juarez.  Army.ca members know that either:

•	Juarez misrepresented his actions; or

•	The Canadian Peace Alliance misrepresented Mr. Juarez’ actions.

But the media gave repeated and totally uncritical attention to Mr. Juarez’ ‘story.’  A first year university journalism student should know enough to check facts.  The facts about Mr. Juarez were, still are on display.  The media ignored them.  By so doing the media misled Canadians.

The Canadian media – CBC, TORSTAR, Bell Global Media (including the _Globe and Mail_ and CTV), CANWEST (including the Southam papers and Global TV) and Québecor (the Sun chain) – has disgraced itself.  It is no longer reporting the news; it is propagandizing.  Of course there are a few notable exception but, as a general rule, Canadians, especially Canadian soldiers, should regard journalists as Taliban sympathizers, or worse. 


Edits: spelling and format


----------



## Big Foot (30 Oct 2006)

Where would we be without Christie Blatchford? In a time when the media seems to be against us, she is firmly behind us. Job well done.


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Oct 2006)

Big Foot said:
			
		

> Where would we be without Christie Blatchford? In a time when the media seems to be against us, she is firmly behind her. Job well done.



But she cannot, should not _*fight*_ DND's media battles for them.  The Minister and Prime Minister need to explain and persuade, *IF* they care about the mission and the soldiers.

I know I'm repeating but: what if this is only about embarrassing the Liberals for partisan political advantage?  What if the government neither knows nor much cares why we *need* to help make Afghanistan safe for the Afghan people?  What if this is all calculation:

•	How little must we do to avoid annoying our American trading partners?

•	How much of that can we do without annoying Canadian voters?

DND and the PMO have big, expert PR machines.  Are they doing their jobs well enough?  Are they working hard enough?  Or am I right: *is the Canadian media propagandizing for the enemy?*


----------



## jimb (30 Oct 2006)

Here it is Tuesday, and I  still can't find any media coveraqe of the above mentioned awards,  but the papers here in Toronto were filled over the weekend with stories and pages of photos of the anto war rallies. I also have to ask about the 37 cities that were supposed to have held such parades ? WTF?

It is obvious to me that the mainstream media in Canada are soundly behind the NDP and the leftwing anti -military agenda. Insulting, but not surprising.

Jimb Toronto.


----------



## vonGarvin (30 Oct 2006)

+1 to Christie Blatchford and her article, condemning not only other newspapers, but her own.  And +1 to the G and M for publishing it.


----------



## MarkOttawa (30 Oct 2006)

Ezra Levant makes similar points in the _Calgary Sun_:

Pressing for defeat 
Taliban insurgents don't need a media relations bureau
http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Columnists/Levant_Ezra/2006/10/30/2175003.html



> ...Every time a Canadian soldier dies in Afghanistan, it is turned into a moment of national bathos.
> 
> The death makes the TV news when it happens, then when the body is put aboard a plane for Canada, then when the plane lands, then again at the funeral. Each of those events is not news -- each is an editorial effort by our press corps to create a public feeling of hopelessness and pointlessness.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## a_majoor (30 Oct 2006)

Although it is only a small gesture, we can fan out through the Blogosphere with Christine's article, and potentially reach a few million people that way. 

Sad to say, some of our best friends are American bloggers, like "Captain" Ed Morrisey http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/, who published the Gomery hearings in the "clear" for all Canadian's to read. Reach out tho our friends in other countries as well, maybe people will wake up to what is really going on when the Congress starts making more pointed inquiries about the actions and behaviours of Canadians.


----------



## Gunnar (30 Oct 2006)

> But she cannot, should not fight DND's media battles for them.



No, but she can stand up for the integrity of the journalistic profession, if the others are too lazy to do so.  By defending herself, and her chosen metier, she defends us all...as a side effect to her defending the integrity of reporters everywhere.  It's a side effect I can live with.


----------



## MarkOttawa (30 Oct 2006)

a_majoor: Trying to do my bit:

http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2006/10/afstan-enemies-within.html
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/008004.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## GAP (30 Oct 2006)

The media's position is slammed in the latest Ruxted Article

http://ruxted.ca/


----------



## x-grunt (30 Oct 2006)

Edward Campbell said:
			
		

> Or am I right: *is the Canadian media propagandizing for the enemy?*



Unfortunately, I believe you are right. What I do not believe is that it is deliberate rather it is the default of their style of reporting. My (completely unresearched) gut belief is this is based loosely on the "if it bleeds it leads" way of reporting news. In this case, if it is "anti-", it gets noticed. Anti-anything is news because is confrontational, and has the potential for stirring up trouble. Good news is no news. Trouble gets read. Getting read (or watched in the case of TV) is everything. The left is "anti-" a lot of the time.

The other thing that gets news, albeit not as often as violence and controversy: Saviours. Saviours heroically stand up to something oppressive and save the day. This should be our sweet spot with the media and the public who still think in terms of peacekeeping. I always thought Medak could have been a huge PR coup for us, the valiant CF soldiers fighting the brutal oppressors "cleansing" the helpless villagers. Canadians understand that. Our new recruiting ads seem to have that slant. Can AFG be "marketed" that way? Attempts to do so seem weak. More emotional appeal is needed.

Agree with von G, +1 to Blatchford and the G&M.


----------



## KevinB (30 Oct 2006)

Edward - excellent comments.


I've been revolted a lot recently by the media -- too bad Edward and Ruxted dont have columns in the media, if for not anything more than neutralizing the crap spewed in the air.


----------



## Babbling Brooks (30 Oct 2006)

> But she cannot, should not fight DND's media battles for them.



I've had some discussions recently with CF Public Affairs about this issue.  The CF needs to treat the PR battle the same way they would any other battle: with doctrine, strategy, tactics.  If the mainstream media (MSM) present the CF with an entrenched opposition, search out their flank and exploit it.  The internet is a great way to do that.

Publishing - in print, audio, or video - isn't the exclusive domain of the press any longer.  It's past time the CF appreciated this reality and started adapting to it.


----------



## Reccesoldier (30 Oct 2006)

Babbling Brooks said:
			
		

> I've had some discussions recently with CF Public Affairs about this issue.  The CF needs to treat the PR battle the same way they would any other battle: with doctrine, strategy, tactics.  If the mainstream media (MSM) present the CF with an entrenched opposition, search out their flank and exploit it.  The internet is a great way to do that.
> 
> Publishing - in print, audio, or video - isn't the exclusive domain of the press any longer.  It's past time the CF appreciated this reality and started adapting to it.



Well said Brooks.

For far too long the CF PR has acted like a firestation, responding only when some emergency arose.  It is indeed time to take this battle to the enemy, to push the CF's position and get the word out.


----------



## Journeyman (30 Oct 2006)

Babbling Brooks said:
			
		

> I've had some discussions recently with CF Public Affairs about this issue.  The CF needs to treat the PR battle the same way they would any other battle: with doctrine, strategy, tactics.  If the mainstream media (MSM) present the CF with an entrenched opposition, search out their flank and exploit it.  The internet is a great way to do that.



Lovely theory from the talking heads. Can anyone come up with any examples where the PAff Branch has ever actually _done_ any of this figurative outflanking on behalf of the deployed troops? 



No, I couldn't think of any either.


Yes, the internet is a great tool - - however, it remains used _only_ by informed individuals and small private groups, willing to invest the time and effort to correct flawed media reports. CF Public Affairs certainly aren't using it.


----------



## Babbling Brooks (30 Oct 2006)

> Can anyone come up with any examples where the PAff Branch has ever actually done any of this figurative outflanking on behalf of the deployed troops?



Nothing earth-shattering, no.  Doesn't mean they can't start, though.

And people are taking small steps towards correcting problems: go to today's Spotlight on Military News and you'll see MarkOttawa (aka Mark Collins) taking David Akin of CTV out to the woodshed for a piece on aircraft procurement that was...how to put this...not Akin's finest piece of work.  Why is that noteworthy?  Because Mark's piece was on a blog, and someone figured if the truth wasn't going to get out in the MSM, they'd point readers to the blog instead.  Whoever puts those stories together each day did an end run on the press, because the press was getting it wrong.  I'd say there's hope.


----------



## probum non poenitet (30 Oct 2006)

Edward Campbell said:
			
		

> *is the Canadian media propagandizing for the enemy?*



There are many in the media who would kill the Easter Bunny and feed him to Osama on live TV if it would make Stephen Harper look bad. Of that I am convinced.
Hell, they'd probably pre-empt hockey to do it.

Screwing the army and their mission is just small potatoes. Oh yeah, our Afghan allies lose out too. Whatever, they don' t vote ...  :

What the long-term consequences of this short-sighted partisan behaviour will be, only time will tell, but I don't see a lot of positives.


----------



## Brad Sallows (30 Oct 2006)

>The CF needs to treat the PR battle the same way they would any other battle: with doctrine, strategy, tactics.

"Information warfare" is a recognized facet of the big picture.  A few years back the perception was that the PAff branch in the CF saw its role as one of providing CYA on behalf of the CoC.  That was then.  Have things changed?  One of the limitations on the branch is that it must deal only in truth, not disinformation, so that credibility is maintained.  That doesn't preclude publicizing favourable truths.

I am reminded of another gem from Bill Mauldin, writing about the time of his discharge from the US Army and a pending media interview (he had become a celebrity due to his cartoons).  Advice from the officer overseeing the matter (and again I paraphrase, this time from Mauldin's book) was "to tell the truth about the Army, but remember that the truth about the Army was that the Army was a nice place to be."


----------



## probum non poenitet (30 Oct 2006)

Babbling Brooks said:
			
		

> I've had some discussions recently with CF Public Affairs about this issue.  The CF needs to treat the PR battle the same way they would any other battle: with doctrine, strategy, tactics.  If the mainstream media (MSM) present the CF with an entrenched opposition, search out their flank and exploit it.  The internet is a great way to do that.
> 
> Publishing - in print, audio, or video - isn't the exclusive domain of the press any longer.  It's past time the CF appreciated this reality and started adapting to it.



Here's the rub:

Because military operations are now largely a political issue (THANKS AGAIN, EVERYONE IN OTTAWA! BIG KISS!) everytime the CF stump pro-actively to support the mission, you venture dangerously close to the waters of politics. Not completely, but close ...

Is that insane? YES!

How did this come to be? Well, there's that lovely old Magna Carta-esque idea that the military would not interfere in the politics of the state, a cornerstone of Western Democracy. 

(The cynical among us might say that the heretofore _unwritten _ counterpart to that covenant is that politicians do not try to actively hamper the nation's military once committed to war, and giving comfort to the enemy should generally be frowned upon. Guess times are a changin'.)

We are in new waters here - I think that's why you see a bit o' hesitation on the part of the CF to 'promote' what it is doing _aggressively_. Because we are trying to do the honourable, traditional, and correct thing ... we are trying to stay above politics ... aren't we quaint?


----------



## Kirkhill (30 Oct 2006)

And if information in support of the mission comes from the government it is rapidly dismissed as propaganda and relegated to the middle of an article as rebuttal to the outrageous charge in the headlines.

So the CF can't argue effectively and neither, I believe, can the government.


----------



## Rescue Randy (30 Oct 2006)

The most powerful weapon that the CF has in this fight for the support of the Canadian public is not Public Affairs, it is the men and women of the CF.  Not the leaders, not the bureaucrats, but the ones who are at the coalface.  The only problem is, you have to have the courage to let them speak, knowing that from time to time they will say something that may cause embarrassment to their leaders.  When we were in the dark days of the mid 90s, and we could not get a positive media story regardless of what we did, we worked our way back by having troops at the front line, in SAR, disaster response, and peacemaking, tell their story.  The public will listen to them.
The problem is that the leadership has just muzzled the troops by restrictions on communications.  I have no quarrel with the need for OPSEC, but we need to let these folks talk - they will overpower the MSM leftist bent.


----------



## mainerjohnthomas (30 Oct 2006)

It is our job as citizens to hold the media to task about its reporting, and to ask the questions that it has chosen to overlook.  Many times I have read the slanted editorial pieces in our own Vancouver Sun and Province, and replied with letters to the editor.  Several times these letters have been published.  The media likes to pretend that all problems can be solved with a "dialog" and that casualties (on either side) represent "horrible mistakes that someone should investigate", and that all political and military objectives can/should be met without a shot fired.  We are not police, we do not arrest insurgents and investigate the childhood traumas that led them astray before giving them a big hug and parole, we are soldiers.  The problems we face in Afghanistan require deadly force, administered with the care and precision that only a well trained, superbly disciplined force can achieve.  The public can understand the truth if it is given them.
       If the media cannot see it on their own, then they can reprint the words of others.  Those of us who know, must speak, or the public will have only the media's misconceptions to base their opinions on.


----------



## The Bread Guy (30 Oct 2006)

Lotsa good media/political analysis here...

Kirkhill - Bang on, at least based on my experience, although I think  if the politicians were out there more often, it would increase the chances of being heard.  In my limited experience, the media appear to have a harder time ignoring what a Minister says (or see him/her as a higher-value target) than what a bureaucratic comm drone has to say.

Re:  the PAff ideas/political climate, Rescue Randy summed up the calculus exactly.  My guess  is that in a minority gov't, the political comms-meisters WAY UP HIGH would prefer having nothing get out there than the wrong thing, hence the apparent messaging risk aversion (as per probum non poenitet's highlight).  

As for the politics of the AFG campaign, as frustrating as it is, in a democracy, the elected officials are gonna think about what anything they do will mean for voters.  As much as it may lead to decisions I don't like from time to time, I'm not comfortable with the alternative.

mainerjohnthomas - As for letters to the editor, notice how many cabinet ministers have been using them to get their message out there more than in the past, say, 3-4 months?  Say, like this?


----------

