# Media respect for the fallen & thier families



## on guard for thee (3 Sep 2006)

A bit of a high-jack here, but I need to vent....

Just went to the North-Side Canex in Petawawa....

CBC news crew (with camera) stationed between the in and out doors of the grocery store....

Before the media starts to interview military members and family members, should a semblance of respect not be given (ie: people commenting on the deaths of service members while ignorant of whether they know the fallen or not)????

I know we are open to public scrutiny, but trapping people (by their positioning) before the names of those killed or injured have been released seems somehow wrong to me....

Sorry. Rant ends.

RIP to the soldiers killed, and Godspeed to those injured.


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (3 Sep 2006)

I think they lack the professionalism and respect, or it is over come by the "vulture" instinct.

Sometimes "getting the story" should be sidelined for respect of those involved.

They will push someones button the wrong way sooner or later, get some teeth knocked in and maybe then back off and show some human frickin decency.


----------



## RangerRay (3 Sep 2006)

I am really sorry, but something is really burning my arse, and I have to vent.

Everything I've seen today is that we lost 4 soldiers and 10 were wounded.  The headlines are screaming it.  Yet buried in the news articles, are the results of their sacrifice: 200+ Taliban dead, 80+ wounded, 150+ fleeing with their tail between their legs.

Is it just me, or is this not a significant victory for us?

With this standard of journalism, I can just see the headlines on June 7, 1944: *340 CANADIANS KILLED*.  Buried in the main body: "Canadians gain foothold on French coast.  The liberation of Europe begins.  Canadians only allied army to reach objectives"

The media these days p!$$ me off!  This sensationalism would never have been tolerated in World War II.

 :threat:  :rage: :brickwall:


----------



## tomahawk6 (3 Sep 2006)

Yes it was a huge victory. The media doesnt want to highlight that fact because there is a political agenda. I have a growing belief that the media in the US,UK and Canada do not want victory as they seem to be in alliance with the muslim fanatics we are fighting. They cant beat us on the battlefield so they can only hope to wear down the will of the citizenry to wage this fight.


----------



## warspite (3 Sep 2006)

Something has to be done to rein in the press. But we are fighting to protect the right to a free press and the other freedoms we enjoy. *WHAT* can we do?


----------



## big bad john (3 Sep 2006)

arj_ns said:
			
		

> Anyone know where these guys are from? I know they were based in Petawawa, but anyone know home towns?



You must be from the media


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (3 Sep 2006)

warspite said:
			
		

> Something has to be done to rein in the press. But we are fighting to protect the right to a free press and the other freedoms we enjoy. *WHAT* can we do?



I don't think it for US to do, I think it is up to the press to decide to be respectful, and wait a suitable amount of time and be professional, and compassionate to the families AND the military famliy overall.

My $0.02


----------



## George Wallace (3 Sep 2006)

arj_ns  

How interesting!  Two posts on this site and both times you are inquiring into the hometowns of the Fallen.

Rather morbid aren't you?


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (3 Sep 2006)

darn it all, where is my rubber hose at?


----------



## big bad john (3 Sep 2006)

He's just trying to do his job.  Now let's do ours and protect the families of our comrades.  I say ban the ******.  But then, I've always loved the media, Christie Blatchford excepted.


----------



## Sig_Des (3 Sep 2006)

Mud Recce Man said:
			
		

> darn it all, where is my rubber hose at?



Hell, I'll hold'em down over a bed of nails while you work 'em over


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (3 Sep 2006)

I respect that it is tempting to look at the numbers and say that we are doing well...  if we look at the numbers we are causing much more damage to them than they are to us. However, by tradition, it is extremely inappropriate to try and mittagate the loss of our soldiers with the casualtie numbers on the other side.  It provides grieving families no comfort to know that their child/father/mother "took out 10 of them".  Also it dehumanises the loss.  It is extremely important that the civilian population never sees their armed forces as a number.  I remember being in the States(Texas) and hearing "so and so died in Iraq,  but in that battel they took out ### number of sand-n******."  I honestly don't know what offended me more,  the idea that a favorable exchange rate for blood was acceptable or the language used.

     Now for the Camera crews jumping on people just after a big tragedy,  I have to agree it is horrible.  I thought they were only informed of the deaths after the families had been notified/prepaired.  Are the embedded journalists on the base in Afghanistan phoning up and saying # got killed from this division go harass that community?  I hope not. Now I know that this is a highly emotionally charged issue,  I want to go write an angry e-mail to the CBC telling them to show a little more respect/class/dignity.  (and send the same one to my MP asking him to just raise the issue)

on guard for thee ,   if you've seen inappropriate actions,  write a letter to that cable company.  I think you'll be pleasantly surprised to how allergic they are to receiving "please show respect" letters they are. Besides,  maybe they don't know better.... change that.


----------



## camochick (3 Sep 2006)

The press will never stop with this stuff. Last month they were at the canex here in Edmonton, this month it's Petewawa. It will never end. And when people are not dying they will print lame stories about condoms in KAF. I gave up watching the news for the most part during my husbands deployment, because I know the story they tell and the story he will tell will be two different things. 

There is a big sense of entitlement in the journalism world (like pushing people out of the way to get a picture, thanks champ). They feel like they deserve to get a comment, or a picture.Too bad they wouldnt wake up a realize they suck (not all but some) >


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (3 Sep 2006)

camochick said:
			
		

> There is a big sense of entitlement in the journalism world (like pushing people out of the way to get a picture, thanks champ). They feel like they deserve to get a comment *rubber hose treatment*, or a picture.Too bad they wouldnt wake up a realize they suck (not all but some) >



I have editted your post...how does that look?

Ok and with that, I will drop it before I get in trouble.  I think I made my point.


----------



## The Bread Guy (3 Sep 2006)

SOME media (even Brit) are not burying the lead, like Reuters:

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/03092006/325/afghan-fighting-kills-200-taliban.html
Afghan fighting kills more than 200 Taliban
4 Sept 06

A major NATO offensive killed more than 200 Taliban fighters in southern Afghanistan and four NATO soldiers died in Sunday's fighting, the organisation said.  NATO also lost 14 British military personnel, who died when a Royal Air Force Nimrod MR2 spyplane crashed Saturday while the alliance and Afghan forces mounted Operation Medusa in Panjwai district of Kandahar province.

In defence of the media, they're interested in what's in their back yards - hence the Canadian media focus on what is happening to Canadians.  We shouldn't be surprised at that.

On the other hand, in my time as a reporter (14 years), I *never* misrepresented myself as anything other than a reporter, or hid my identity as such, when seeking information - even here on Army.ca, I use my name.  Nice try (if that's what's going on), but let's see if any reporter is brave enough to ID themselves here....


----------



## Wookilar (3 Sep 2006)

It's not like this is new behaviour or tactics for the media, just a "new" subject for them to persue. They did the same thing when the Regt was disbanded. Same thing when Calgary was closed. They even used some of the same tactics when we were at the floods, the fires and the ice storm, and we were the nice guys then.

They do the same thing when we leave to go over and when we come back. The media types that are well behaved are remembered, but their numbers are very small. If multiple media types are behaving so badly that I have to physically hold on to ninerdomestic to stop her from "sorting them the f@@@-out," there is some serious issues inside the "profession."

My next tour will probably be as a Pl Comd. She has already stated that she better not be witness to any of "her" people getting harassed or she will be sorting it out.  :threat: "You know she's too Army when..?"......naaaa, she's just Army enough for me.  ;D


----------



## Petard (4 Sep 2006)

Sometimes these disrespectful media hounds get what's coming to them.
Is there an e-mail version of "get you ear defenders 'cause here comes another war story"?
Anyway here goes
About Jan 89 a Cdn Herc went down in Alaska, smacked a berm near the threshold while landing in bad weather, had some troops from the Airborne on board (including E Bty para), lost some good men then, and it was also about that time 4 others had been lost in a tragic car accident. The hurt was real and emotions near the surface. One particular naive reporter went trolling for emotions in a fave watering hole downtown ( I think it was called the Diplomat across from the Pembroke Legion, is it still there?) At anyrate the would-be vulture must've thought he could catch some troops more willing to "spill' after they had a few, instead the only thing that got spilled was the reporter on his ass after one of the troops expressed what he thought.
Not PC but it sure was apropos at the time.

On a different note I think most reporters have learned an abiding repsect for what the military is currently enduring, but there are those who believe that the nature of their business is to get good TV, and getting knocked on their can for rudely invading someones privacy would only make more fodder for them


----------



## Bzzliteyr (4 Sep 2006)

Well, last week as the men and women in Valcartier were returning from Afghanistan and arriving at 3R22R drill hall, there was a quite large (CBC?) satellite van outside.  I had just moved in the shacks so I have no telly to confirm it, but it certainly looked as though they were covering the return.  In the Adsum (base newspaper) the front cover had images of "families reunited" along with photos.  It's too bad you didn't see the "good press" happening.  I saw at least one  radio reporter too with him "oh so low budget" recorder.  

I believe the unfortunate thing to remember here is that the media is a business.  And what do businesses do?  They try to make money.  And what makes money?  Death and sex, shock factor.  We create the demand and the media gives it to us just as we have taught them to in the last 30 years or so.. it is not the media's fault, it is society's.  Ask and ye shall receive.

It's unfortunate, but it's true.

Bzz


----------



## Armymedic (4 Sep 2006)

Here is an excerpt from a Toronto Star article

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_PrintFriendly&c=Article&cid=1157321707436&call_pageid=968332188492



> Friends, family and neighbours drifted in and out of Nolan's Petawawa home yesterday. Larry King, who was Nolan's father-in-law from a previous marriage, asked that the family be left alone, but offered some warm words of remembrance for his former son-in-law.
> 
> "He was an excellent soldier and he died doing what he loved. His family is very upset right now," King said.
> 
> ...



Obviously somebody is doing some serious research to get the "indepth" interviews with people who knew these two men...

Newscrews all around base yesterday, dispite the rainy conditions....Even interviews with the Canex staff....

 :-X


----------



## FormerHorseGuard (4 Sep 2006)

i guess both sides of the story have a job to do and they do it in the way that sells the most airtime or newsprint.
i do not blame the reporters for the job they do , but i blame them for the way they do it. 
sticking a camera in a persons face thne aska  question then edit it to get the answer they want. 
sounds bites they call it i think and sometimes they should get a bite on the ass


----------



## on guard for thee (4 Sep 2006)

I've now had a day to chill out, so will try again to state my position.

I do not have an issue with the fact this is news, and that it will be covered. My main issues with yesterday is as follows:

Scenario:

My wife gets "caught" going to Canex on the day a Canadian soldier has been killed, but before the name has been released. She is asked to comment, perhaps before even having heard of the death, and does. She then comes home with the groceries and sees there is a message waiting on the answering machine. The message is from her best friend, and the fallen soldier was this ladies husband.

How might my wife's comments have been different had she known who was killed? You do the math.

If the media wants/needs a sound bite, fine. That's what the PAFFO and Chain of Command are for. In my opinion, the ambushing of civilians who may have a very close link to the fallen's family (prior to their being informed), is just not on.

2 cents from me


----------



## FormerHorseGuard (4 Sep 2006)

i have to agree with you said, offical sound bits are what they should run, not be asking people on the street, till offical names are released. Bad tastes runs in the media and not jsut in the US , Canadian Media is following the bigger the noise the better the ratings


----------



## The Bread Guy (4 Sep 2006)

Journalism Canon #964 - Thou shalt solicit comments on how people feel about a tragedy or issue, even if they don't know about said tragedy or or issue.

Journalism Canon #964a - If thou delivers bad news to someone you seek comment from under 964, thou can include the fact in the story.  "When told about the tragedy, here's what these people had to say...."

Journalism Canon #965 - Thou shalt not speak to a spokesperson when you can talk to a "real person". Spokesperson speak for the bosses of the group in question, not for the people involved.  A Spokesperson may be hiding something, or won't be allowed to discuss personal feelings or opinions about the organization s/he works for, but "real people" are more likely to speak their minds.

Thus speaketh the journalism teachers.....


----------



## George Wallace (4 Sep 2006)

on guard for thee said:
			
		

> Scenario:
> 
> My wife gets "caught" going to Canex on the day a Canadian soldier has been killed, but before the name has been released. She is asked to comment, perhaps before even having heard of the death, and does.




Not to make matters worse, but perhaps you should sit down with your wife (and this is for all spouses) and talk over some of the rules you have for talking to the press.  You are briefed at work at what you should or should not say to the press and how to deal with them, but your spouse is not.  That doesn't help the situation much does it, and leaves your spouse in an awkward situation at times.


----------



## The Bread Guy (4 Sep 2006)

GW - +1

As a professional communicator myself, one of my jobs is to help people come up with general media lines in all sorts of situations, and I imagine the "Veritas" folks have a lot of people doing the same thing.  Depending on the comfort level of the spouse involved, I presume there's nothing wrong with getting some general "command messaging" from the PAff folks for ANY family member to use as a default if there's nothing else to say, or they don't know what to say because they're wrenched with grief.

Then there's always the, "if you don't say anything, they can't misquote you" approach....


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (4 Sep 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Not to make matters worse, but perhaps you should sit down with your wife (and this is for all spouses) and talk over some of the rules you have for talking to the press.  You are briefed at work at what you should or should not say to the press and how to deal with them, but your spouse is not.  That doesn't help the situation much does it, and leaves your spouse in an awkward situation at times.



Agreed...I wish someone had been around to advise the girlfriend of the guy from Thunder Bay before the Press got a hold of her. They basically descended on her and got her raw first reactions before she had time to do a think about things....IMHO. It was terribly insensitive of them and I think she made some comments that did a bit of damage to his honour. The media are vultures for the most part.


----------



## RangerRay (4 Sep 2006)

My opinion still stands...the media were able to turn the success of this operation into a defeat.

I'm just glad they weren't like this during World War II.


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (4 Sep 2006)

Well,  next time I see a news report showing a person who has been ambushed by the media because of some sad thing,  I'll fire off a nasty e-mail to the producer.  I think that if more than than people start writing those types of e-mails tactics will change.   Am I wrong?


----------



## DavidAkin (4 Sep 2006)

Though I'm fully expecting to get piled on here -- 

I'm a TV reporter [see the profile for details]. Just as I wouldn't presume that one CF member's behaviours and attitudes are typical of all CF members, I trust you'll recognize that all journalists behave and act in different ways. Here's my story.

I was assigned to Petawawa yesterday.

I left Ottawa at 11 am.  At that time, the base in Kandahar is under lockdown.  All my colleague there could tell us before his communications were disconnected was that it was "big". As he is forbidden to provide any other details, we put two and two together at this end and assume 'big' means that some CF members may have been hurt or killed. As we know that the casualties would likely come from Petawawa or Shio, my network dispatched reporters to both bases.

I arrived at Petawawa shortly after 1 pm. My crew and I parked outside the main gate of the base. I immediately telephoned the base's public affairs officer, identified myself and explained my purpose. I requested that, if, in fact, we should learn that any deceased were based in Petawawa, some reflection or commentary from the base commander or chaplain would be a big help. I made no requests to speak to a family member -- nor would I for the rest of the day. My attitude is: If a family member wishes to speak to us, they know where to find us or the base PR certainly knows where we are.

Shortly after I arrived the media lockdown was lifted and DND issued a release to say that four CF members had died. But DND was not yet releasing names or units of the deceased. So, on the assumption that they could all be from Shilo just as easily as they could all be from Petawawa, we stayed put at the front gate. DND, as many in this forum will be aware, does not release names and units until the family of the deceased says they should. 

Around 4 pm, DND officially released the names of MELLISH and NOLAN. 

At that point, I and a cameraman proceeded to the Military Family Resources Centre. There, I went in alone and spoke to the centre's manager, Frances Priest. I introduced myself to her, told her the purpose of my visit, and asked if she would agree to talk to us to  describe the kind of day it had been on the base. I explained to her the context in which her remarks would be presented in my news item. She first consulted with base command and agreed to be interviewed. She asked that I not ask her about certain subjects and I agreed.  Not until she had agreed to be interviewed did I invite my cameraman into the facililty. In fact, he and our gear stayed in our unmarked vehicle for the 20 minutes or so it took until Frances could receive the all-clear to do this interview.

As soon as the interview was completed, I received a call from base public affairs that the rear party CO of the RCR would make himself available for media questions and that I would be called when the commander was available. So, as we were finished with, my cameraman and I promptly returned to the front gate to wait for further instructions from base PR. An hour or so later, base PR telephoned us to invite us back on to the base and accompanied us to a briefing room where Major Peter Scott delivered a statement and answered a few questions.

THe link to the results of this day is here: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060902/nato_casualties_060903/20060903?hub=CTVNewsAt11 [look on the right-hand side under video and click on 'David Akin reports from CFB Petawawa']

I'm pretty confident that the base public affairs officer (Capt. Spurr), Major Scott, and Ms. Priest would agree that I and my crew conducted ourselves in a professional respectful manner. 'Course, no one lights up a bulletin board when reporters do their jobs that way, do they?   And, it's my observation, that the vast majority of my colleagues in the Parliamentary Press Gallery would conduct themselves in a similar manner.

Ok, -- pile on ...

Cheers --


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Sep 2006)

DavidAkin said:
			
		

> Though I'm fully expecting to get piled on here --
> 
> I'm a TV reporter ...



Not by me.  I'm anything but a fan of journalists but I recognize that you have a job to do, even if it is just _filling in the white spaces between the adverts_.

I think you did things the right way.  Maybe a few of your friends colleagues will copy that down and make it SOP.


----------



## George Wallace (4 Sep 2006)

Well David

I don't see anything there to pile on.  If only all were conducting themselves with the same high standards and ethics.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (4 Sep 2006)

DavidAkin said:
			
		

> Though I'm fully expecting to get piled on here --
> 
> I'm a TV reporter [see the profile for details]. Just as I wouldn't presume that one CF member's behaviours and attitudes are typical of all CF members, I trust you'll recognize that all journalists behave and act in different ways. Here's my story.
> 
> ...



Sounds like you did your job with respect and compassion. what I can't stand is when microphones are shoved in the faces of people who have just received bad news and they are asked "how do you feel?" Or political questions about whether they think the mission is "worth it." 
People who have just received bad news and are in the anger or denial phase of grieving are going to say things they might regret saying later once they've had some time to collect themselves.
I think all we're asking for is respect and dignity....it sounds like you did that yesterday....thanks


----------



## GAP (4 Sep 2006)

Why pile on? You are a professional, you performed your job in a professional manner, and to boot, you are man enough to come on here and state so. Good on you, and  thank you. 

I don't think anyone here has a problem with good sensitive reporting. We may not agree with the subject sometimes, but that's allowed.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (4 Sep 2006)

Mr Akin,

Good on you for coming openly to this site and describing your methods and (by to an extent) your motivation.  None could take offence at your actions that day.


----------



## paracowboy (4 Sep 2006)

You sure you should put that in print, dude? Won't you get in trouble with your union or something? I mean, showing respect, following rules, being professional...

Well done. How come so many of your counterparts can't seem to grasp any of that?

Well done on being forthright. You're quite the rarity. We've had several come on here without the balls to state their occupation. Many simply lurk, hoping to get something they can use in a headline. Others actively fish for info in a deceitful manner.


----------



## Scott (4 Sep 2006)

David,

Welcome to Army.ca! I hope you can use this site constructively...

I won't waste any bandwidth repeating what the others have said as I agree with them all.

Cheers, hope you enjoy the site and continue to contribute positively.


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (4 Sep 2006)

DavidAkin said:
			
		

> Around 4 pm, DND officially released the names of *Warrant Officer * MELLISH and *Warrant Officer * NOLAN.



I assume you mistakenly forgot their ranks, which certainly would have been more appropriate IMHO, so as a friendly gesture, I added that into a the quote.

MRM


----------



## The Bread Guy (4 Sep 2006)

David - welcome, from a previous life   

Just curious about how much you can say re: material posted to news sites where you work and editing - is it like print, where you submit, an editor at some point makes the final decision re:  what gets posted (for length), or do you generally get everything you print up?  In the past, I've seen situations where a reporter may have included information in his/her version that provides another side of the story, but doesn't end up online.

Looking forward to some education & discussion from someone in the biz willing to share...


----------



## muskrat89 (4 Sep 2006)

From a different perspective, I can relate this - a local news channel came out to film a piece on my family. They had my wife, daughter and I answer questions (separately) on-camera. They filmed well over an hour. The piece that ended up on TV was 1:15 ( one minute and 15 seconds)

Mud recce Man - You realize of course, that all of your future posts are fair game, for people to "edit", if they feel that you have made an oversight. Turnabout is fair play....


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (4 Sep 2006)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> Mud recce Man - You realize of course, that all of your future posts are fair game, for people to "edit", if they feel that you have made an oversight. Turnabout is air play....



For sure.  It was meant as a...hint?  I am assuming you don't think I was necessarily wrong, and I had thought I wasn't out of my lane or rude in the way I put it, given the title of this thread.  

MRM


----------



## George Wallace (4 Sep 2006)

Mud Recce Man said:
			
		

> For sure.  It was meant as a...hint?  I am assuming you don't think I was necessarily wrong, and I had thought I wasn't out of my lane or rude in the way I put it, given the title of this thread.
> 
> MRM



It would depend on how much one reads.  This is the second such case you have made for yourself today.


----------



## George Wallace (4 Sep 2006)

Don't bother questioning.....Yes!  We do know how to count.   ;D


----------



## big bad john (4 Sep 2006)

David you conducted yourself properly, not everyone does.  We get some people from the media who come on here like yourself who identify yourselves and ask questions.  That is welcome.  What we don't welcome are people from the media who come on and Do Not identify themselves as such.  Then ask questions.  Then publish the answers.  We don't like being ambushed is all.


----------



## DavidAkin (4 Sep 2006)

milnewstbay said:
			
		

> Just curious about how much you can say re: material posted to news sites where you work and editing - is it like print, where you submit, an editor at some point makes the final decision re:  what gets posted (for length), or do you generally get everything you print up?  In the past, I've seen situations where a reporter may have included information in his/her version that provides another side of the story, but doesn't end up online.



Hey Tony -- 

Anything published or broadcast under the any the imprint of any of the journalism brands I've worked for has likely been reviewed and vetted by several people -- reporters, producers, directors and editors. And I generally prefer that if it's got my name on it, it's got all the stuff in it that we all agreed should be in it.


----------



## paracowboy (4 Sep 2006)

okay, now this is just crazy! 


> DAVID AKIN
> -----------------
> Reporter | Parliamentary Bureau
> CTV National News
> ...


Keep this sort of thing up, and I may just have to change one of my favourite sayings.


----------



## geo (4 Sep 2006)

David Adkin,

Thank you for the time and trouble you have given us - providing information you did not have to provide.  I think we all appreceate the professional way you have handled your duties.

Best Regards

CHIMO!


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (4 Sep 2006)

David,

Thanks for sharing your experiences here. I think the media and the CF have a long road ahead and allowing us to understand your job a little more is very helpful. I watched your piece with great interest when it originally aired (was that just yesterday?) and I'm glad to know that "no families were harmed in the making" so to speak.

I believe the more we understand each others vocation, motivation and tactics, the better off we'll all be. The friends and families of our soldiers will be better represented and less hesitant to comment, which means more accurate and "personalized" reporting.


Thanks
Mike


----------



## warspite (5 Sep 2006)

David you have my respect. Thank you for giving me some insight into your world.


----------



## Roy Harding (5 Sep 2006)

David:

I respect what you did, and how you did it.   

I've added you to my (admittedly short) list of journalists for whom I have respect - I don't always agree with them, or what they write, but I appreciate their respectful approach to the subjects they cover.

My opinion was swayed by your open and honest participation here - that took some cojones - we're not always a forgiving crowd.

Keep doing what you're doing, the way you've done it so far - even when I disagree with you, I'll support the need for the respectful coverage you bring.

Roy Harding


----------



## Bzzliteyr (5 Sep 2006)

David, I think you have just managed to score yourself many new 'contacts' within the CF.  I too have to add my applause to your professional manner and am now eager to see what more you can 'bring to the table' here at Army.ca.  It's almost as if we have made a new friend today.


----------



## DavidAkin (5 Sep 2006)

Mike Bobbitt said:
			
		

> David,
> 
> Thanks for sharing your experiences here. ...[snipped]
> 
> ...



Thanks Mike -- and thanks everyone who commented -- for your generosity. Lest you get the idea I'm some kind of saint -- I do want the set the record straight and say that I'm sure I have acted badly from time to time -- I've yelled at our Prime Minister, for example, when he wouldn't answer my questions. I've covered some of the court appearances of those charged with terrorism offences and stuck microphones in front of family members of the accused as they've left the court.  I shouted questions at professional athletes who didn't want to talk about the bad game they just played.

I'd just thought I'd point that out in case I'm ever captured on TV acting rudely.  I wouldn't want anyone to think I'm a hypocrite.  

That said -- our SOP is to almost always ask politely first, clearly explaining why we want to talk to someone. And then, depending on who it is and what the story is about, I get a little more, erm, insistent. But I think there's no upside to pressuring families who are going through the worst period in their life. As I said in the last post, if they think we can help with their grieving process -- and you'd be surprised at how many find that a media report on their loved helps share the burden of grief -- they know where to find us.
In any event, there's no substitute for trying to establish a relationship with a potential contact or source -- as I guess I'm doing here -- well in advance of having to formally ask them to stand in front of a camera.

So thanks again -- and I'll try and stay out of the way around here ...


----------



## GAP (5 Sep 2006)

I may be stepping out of my lane here, but I would think it would be to your advantage (and everyone elses) to utilize some of the VERY experienced personnel here to give perspective to articles you are writing. It is one thing to have an issue that is newsworthy, it is another to write about that issue in the context it belongs, rather than the issue stand alone with no rounding out/background. 

my 1cent, I need the other


----------



## cplcaldwell (5 Sep 2006)

> I would think it would be to your advantage (and everyone elses) to utilize some of the VERY experienced personnel here to give perspective to articles you are writing.



+1.


----------



## DavidAkin (5 Sep 2006)

GAP said:
			
		

> I may be stepping out of my lane here, but I would think it would be to your advantage (and everyone elses) to utilize some of the VERY experienced personnel here to give perspective to articles you are writing. It is one thing to have an issue that is newsworthy, it is another to write about that issue in the context it belongs, rather than the issue stand alone with no rounding out/background.
> 
> my 1cent, I need the other



Doin' that already. That's why I'm here! And, since you invited me -- let me officially declare my interest in chatting offline or on, with any crews, interested parties or conspiracy theorists working on or hoping to work on C-17s, CH-101s, C-130s, Victoria Class subs, and that new boat the navy plans to buy. Those are all perennial hot topics I'm currently very interested in for reasons you can all probably guess.


----------



## hugh19 (5 Sep 2006)

Well for navy questions, I am navy. I am also in Ottawa.  Posted here since January


----------



## cplcaldwell (5 Sep 2006)

I've been thinking about this and I have a question for Mr Akin.

First a preamble. I think that what _we_ see when we see the reaction to news coverage of a comrade's death is the tip of the iceberg. It may be that members of the public and the press think that _we_ are somehow closing ranks in some sort of military equivalent to the civilian police's "blue wall of silence". But I do no think that is correct.

What I think happens is that a rather deep down reaction occurs. Most of us know that the 'average Canadian' has no idea of what we do, most of us believe that many, if not most Canadians, do not really truly respect us for what we do: I think that most of us, based on recent history, and the way that some people shepherd their kids away from us when we show up in a bank or a Tim's in CadPat really believe that to be true. 

Sure there's the 'world's peacekeeper' notion that most Canadians have, but that too is mostly shite. 

But my question is this: *If the average Canadian is really (and perhaps rightfully) more concerned about healthcare waiting times, or getting little Janey to dance lessons on time, what, prithee tell, is the role of the press in educating them?* This is not encouraging propaganda, there is real progress being made in Afstan, why is it not reported? Bloggers routinely castigate the mission because "Afghans don't want us there"; do they not? 

Most every QM that I have ever seen has the ubiquitous piece of paper posted above the RQMS's desk _"We the unappreciated, have done so much with so little for so long, we are now able to to almost anything with almost nothing"_.  It's not too hard to blame the Canadian public for that state of affairs.

Most of _us_ know that the degree to which the CF will succeed over the next twenty years will have as much to do with what the public, disinterested at best and uninformed at worst, comes out of this war thinking about the CF and how _we_ succeeded or failed ( or how we are perceived to have ...).

And so I propose a hypothesis. Let's tell them about our successes, when they happen. An Army (yes and a Navy and an Air Force) spends a long time sitting around for a war to happen. *Well now we have one!* Canadians are conscious of Vimy and Juno and Scheldt and Kapyong (if not be name at least by folk knowledge). But, it seems to me they are not conscious of Kandahar or Kabul. Why? 

Simply put because we are not telling them. Why do we focus, as a society on Combat deaths? How many little girls in Afghanistan were able to go to school to day (as my little girl did?). More importantly to what degree did the deaths of our comrades contribute to that ( and a thousand other successes ) ? 

Why is it that despite the massive power of Google and Yahoo I can only find one opinion poll on what Afghans think about Canada's role in ISAF and dozens about what Canadians think?

With all due respect to Canadians, and to paraphrase that nameless Franco NCO we all (seem) to have had on BMQ " You people know f**k nothing about this!"

I can understand why the Pembroke or Ottawa media was at Pet this morning. I can even be convinced why CTV or the Globe was at Pet this morning; but forgive me if a boil a little bit when I see the national media's best effort 'in country' seems to be a correspondent standing in front of a a row of mod tent reciting a PAff release or the wholesale consumption of a Reuters or AP article in total by the 'national newspaper'. 

What then can be done to put the deaths of these comrades in context? Well, how about letting Canadians know that 90% of the (Afghan)country is peaceful. How about a nice little HumInt story about little _<insert_typical_Afghan_female_name_here>_'s first day at school. How about telling Canadians how many hectares of Afghan country were planted in alfalfa this year, who cares about poppy (work in progress). And how about a poll about what the people that this is all about think?

 It's almost a sort of racism to imply that _all_ of this is about _our_ families and _our_ public and _our_ politicians, it's not about _us_, it's about _them_. WADR, _their_ story is not being told and as a result _our_ role is being debased.

I don't intend to demean you or your organization, your respective records speak for themselves. 

It just seems to me that the military has progressed through three or four generational incarnations since 1966 (and _we_ did it for so long with so little we are know able to fight a war on the other side of the world!) yet the press seems to still be caught in the paradigm of body counts and grieving widows.

War is a terrible ledger, why are we seeing so much of the costs paid? Why do we not see more of the earnings gained?


----------



## Mud (5 Sep 2006)

I too am a member of the media and have been following this discussion with interest since the weekend. 

First off, David, I greatly respect the way you went about your reporting.  I'm a staff TV camera guy in Toronto and have faced that sort of situation many times, and many times have had to really push the reporter to not be too agressive and to just talk to people and ask if they want to talk on-camera.  The conduct of the CBC crew in Petawawa was wrong, if I had been assigned to that story I would've had a big problem with it.  But I'm sure I'm not the only one who often disagrees with the way things are done at work.

My advice to anyone in the CF and thier friends and family, is simply to realize that we in the media are not perfect but much more importantly that you all have the control in these situations.  Use your judgement, don't talk to anyone who you are not sure about.  A true pro like David will try to communicate with you and not just "shove a camera in your face".  You all have valuable experiences and ideas to share and there are good reporters who want to tell those stories.

Dave


----------



## Cloud Cover (5 Sep 2006)

cplcaldwell- How fair was that? Do you really expect he can answer that?


----------



## cplcaldwell (5 Sep 2006)

_Not entirely fair _ 

and 

_No._

But was the question then not worth the asking?


----------



## Cloud Cover (5 Sep 2006)

Cut the guy some slack, its not a philosophy class.


----------



## cplcaldwell (5 Sep 2006)

Sorry, whiskey601, I slid that edit in under you.

Slack granted.


----------



## paracowboy (5 Sep 2006)

caldwell was hardly out of line. We've said exactly the same thing time and again, rhetorically. Now he has someone with the stones and knowledge to answer him.


----------



## Cloud Cover (5 Sep 2006)

Rhetorically, perhaps.    

I don't think David Akin can validly answer what results are produced from a google search, or why other parts of the media tell stories the way they do.


----------



## cplcaldwell (5 Sep 2006)

If it's possible to elevate the rant to a rhetorical level, that's what I was trying to do. I doubt I succeeded. 

First, let me say of all the Cdn broadcast networks, CTV is easily the best. I watched Newsnet over the weekend trying to gain information on these incidents and got not only hard news, but lucid commentary. On CBC I got hourly reports and Antiques Roadshow.

But it was a rhetorical question, not polite _and_ rhetorical, just rhetorical. 

David Akin might not be able to answer as to why google produces only one hit, but he might be able to muse on why that one hit did not have a CTV byline. In as much as he can influence his editor that is his responsibility. In as much as he owes me an answer: whatever.

My responsibility here, and the very limited sense of this topic, is just to be a bother (although I succeed elsewhere at this without trying; I am sure). I freely admit that it may have appeared unfair, biased and occasionally sounded bitter. But I wouldn't have wasted forty five minutes writing the post if I thought David Akin was some low level troll from the local shopping mall rag....


_Edit: just to corrrect a grammar error_


----------



## Cloud Cover (5 Sep 2006)

Thanks man, Great reply.


----------



## 2 Cdo (5 Sep 2006)

While we are sitting here and ranting about the media has anyone ever noticed when CBC is describing casualties they list troops as killed or "injured" when fighting Taliban or al Queda but when killed by "friendly fire" they refer to those killed or "wounded".

Now I have a problem with the use of the word "injured" as it is used. My personal opinion is that these troops are not injured but are in fact wounded! Injured makes me think of sports injuries or an accident around the house whereas wounded leaves no doubt about how the attained that status.

I just found it sickening that the CBC with their anti-conservative, anti-American bias would stoop to choice of words to get in their anti-American dig! Why do they have a problem with the word "wounded" when fighting our enemy, maybe they wish for the glory days of Cyprus/Golan peacekeeping and can't stomach the idea that we indeed have a fighting army who are fighting in a war!

Sorry folks, I have a special dislike for about 99% of the media, don't trust them, don't believe them, and honestly think the world would be a better place without that 99% of them!


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (5 Sep 2006)

CBC news is doing a piece now here in Halifax that is just making me   :rage:

Asking people in Truro if we should get out of Afghanistan, and the first girl was 18ish, giggling and saying yes.

Not biased at all, the report by Jim Nunn that was just on.   :


----------



## Weinie (5 Sep 2006)

For David Akin,

Kudos for coming on here, as others have already said. You may have noticed that when it comes to military issues, most of us wear our heart on our sleeve, right under the Maple Leaf. It is virtually impossible to explain why we are like this to someone who has not served in the military, but we tend to close ranks to defend against any perceived or real slights.

We are now under the media and public spotlight to a greater degree than at any time I can recall in my 20 plus years. What we tend to see in the media is often the sensational, but i understand that. For the folks on the ground doing the job every day, it is not so easy to understand, and I suspect that you will always see us pressuring the media to report on more than the "bad" stuff. 

Cpl Caldwell is right; the reporting from Kandahar is coming from someone behind the Hesco. There is a reason for that as well, and it probably won't sit well with most on here.

The majority of embedded media are under strict rules not to leave the camp, in case they *miss something*. The MSM here rely on their embedded media for regular updates on activities, and if one of these media is out on a 6-10 day patrol, and something happens like a blue on blue or a casualty, the networks will not be able to use their embed to cover it. It is as plain and simple as that.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (5 Sep 2006)

David
I watched your piece on the 11pm news last night...you're a class act man. I understand that at times your job is frustrating and that maybe you've had to be aggressive or a little rude to get politicians to answer in a straight forward manner...that goes with the territory of politicians for they are naturally evasive so they can't be pinned down.

Keep on respecting the vulnerable ones please...widows/widowers or worried spouses are not people to be played with and embarrassed...leave them alone and let my profession help them (Padres) or other helping professions as they choose. I do agree that sometimes they want to make sure that people know how great their spouse was and they show great strength under the media glare...Marnie Leger comes to mind and the mother of Cpl Davis...but for the most part a good deal of discretion and respect needs to be afforded them, especially in the initial 24 hours of them receiving bad news.

Thank you.


----------

