# Casualty Reporting from Afghanistan



## George Wallace (23 Aug 2007)

There is room for some discussion on the matter of what is being reported by embedded Media and their responsibilities in what and when they report.  The following posts in another Topic on the latest tragedy in Afghanistan bring home some important points:



			
				Michael O`Leary said:
			
		

> Gentlemen, the point is they we do not allow posts identifying personnel, units, etc., without a public source link.  There are people on the forum that are in the know with these incidents, and we do not want to be the source of a premature leak before the official release.  Therefore, any such posts without a direct linked public source will be challenged and/or removed.
> 
> Milnet.ca Staff






			
				Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> First of all, my condolences to those who are suffering this loss.
> 
> WARNING RANT INBOUND
> 
> ...





			
				a_majoor said:
			
		

> Or we can take direct action:
> 
> 1. Publicly boycott CBC stations (we probably don't watch/listen anymore anyway). A letter to the local station outlining the above incident and perhaps a CC to the rival stations. Cut and paste from Reccesoldier's post, it has the right tone.
> 
> ...


  

The Media today seem to flaunt a warped opinion of what the definition of Freedom of the Press is.  Yes, they have freedom to report, but they must also remember that they don't have the Right to everyone's information.  In essence their interpretation of one Freedom is an intrusion on another Freedom and contradicts those rights.  There are Privacy Laws.  There are matters of National Security.  The Press must know their bounds and abide by them.  They do not have the Right to Know everything.  They do not have the Right to Report everything.

The members of the media who are embedded with the CF in Afghanistan are there with strict rules.  They have agreed to those stipulations as to what and when they report.  It is a contract between them and the CF.  If they break those 'rules' then they will pay the consequences.  Without any doubt, those who have released news without going through the proper channels, will soon be on the big silver bird and coming home, and will have ruined the reputation of their colleagues.  No doubt Radio Canada will have a very difficult time convincing anyone that they should be able to send over replacements for their members of the media.  They null and void their agreement with the CF if and when they circumvent 'Communication Lock Downs".


----------



## 2 Cdo (23 Aug 2007)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Without any doubt, those who have released news without going through the proper channels, will soon be on the big silver bird and coming home, and will have ruined the reputation of their colleagues.



Or they can be escorted off base and left to their own devices!


----------



## geo (23 Aug 2007)

2 Cdo said:
			
		

> Or they can be escorted off base and left to their own devices!


We can say that BUT, you know as well as I do that, we won't do that...


----------



## Disenchantedsailor (23 Aug 2007)

my thoughts on this one.  The embedded media pers are not mbr's of the CF a comms lockdown does not affect them as it does everyone else, mainley because the jimmies don't have the ability to "turn off" the comms pipe on the media types. That said there has been in the past an understanding between the media types and the mission RSM and they play the game. Now in this case there was a premature leak of what could be considered operational information and ergo results in a violation of the security of information act. These persons should be on thier way to the pogie line just to save face for our national crown owned and operated TV Network, and maybe even the RCMP should be looking at charges under the security of information act (used to be official secrets act) and maybe, just maybe in 2 years or so they might even do some time. The only purpose this would serve is as a wake up call to the rest, premature leaks will not be tolerated, and if they affect families at home or operations (this was relativly close to the completion of the mission) they will be dealt with according to law.  Just my thoughts.


----------



## geo (23 Aug 2007)

In the past, the individual journalists who have broken the rule have been sent packing & banned from returning
That's about as far as we can go.
We want the media to write positive things about what we are doing over there.... and you won't have that if the news service has been banned.


----------



## tomahawk6 (23 Aug 2007)

If I were the commander I would require my PAO approve any story prior to filing for OPSEC/PERSEC issues.


----------



## The Bread Guy (23 Aug 2007)

For reference & support when writing to the CBC, feel free to draw their attention to their own journalistic principles, posted on the internet:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/64744.0.html


----------



## punisher_6d (23 Aug 2007)

I am still not sure how these two journalists actually violated the rules (if at all) or whether the reports came at the end of the communication lockdown.  It was "Breaking News" yesterday when BGen Guy Laroche announced the deaths from Kandahar.  I follow the news and Quebec media rather closely and all these events happened at the same time. After all this is very big news in Quebec, more so than in the rest of Canada, and came on the same day another soldier's remains were repatriated home.  The DND news release about the incident (which was released simultaneously) even mentioned that Canadian journalists were injured.  No big "scoop" here.


----------



## mudrecceman (23 Aug 2007)

What about the family members and friends of the fallen?  How should they find out about the deaths?

If nothing else, they dropped the ball on that end IMO.

Usually, the names have been released to the public AFTER there has been sufficient time for the family to notify the people that are near and dear to them on their own, rather than those close to the fallen "hearing it on the 6 o'clock news".


----------



## geo (23 Aug 2007)

Punisher_6D said:
			
		

> After all this is very big news in Quebec, more so than in the rest of Canada, and came on the same day another soldier's remains were repatriated home.


The death of Canadian troops is as much a big deal in the rest of Canada as it is in Quebec.
As witness to that, did you see the number of people who lined the overpasses between Trenton & Toronto?
I can also guarantee you that there will be as many people lining the highway of heroes when others follow.

Not a question of it being "no biggie", it's a question of it being "as big a biggie"


----------



## punisher_6d (23 Aug 2007)

I don't follow you at all?  How did they "drop the ball" and what names were released on the"six o'clock news?"  The only name withheld was of MWO Mercier, and that was at the request of his family.


----------



## missing1 (23 Aug 2007)

"After all this is very big news in Quebec, more so than in the rest of Canada, "

I don't follow YOU at all here,The death of a Canadian soldier is felt the same across Canada regardless of where he may have been from.

Dave


----------



## vonGarvin (23 Aug 2007)

Punisher_6D said:
			
		

> I don't follow you at all?  How did they "drop the ball" and what names were released on the"six o'clock news?"  The only name withheld was of MWO Mercier, and that was at the request of his family.


Punisher: 
Here's what happened.  Radio Canada announced that two of theirs were wounded.  They also said that "two soldiers and an interpretor were killed" prior to any official announcement by the military: here or there.  Yes, the General gave his press conference soon after, but that is the key word: AFTER.  
In fact, CTV NewsNet had a tag-line that said "Radio Canada reports 2 soldiers killed".
The point is that whenever the CF makes such announcements, it is ONLY after all the processes are completed.  Radio Canada breached that trust.

As for "big news...more so than in the rest of Canada", I call BS: just check out the "Highway of Heroes" in Ontario.


----------



## punisher_6d (23 Aug 2007)

Captain Sensible,

No.  This happened at the same time.  Once a lockdown is lifted in theatre it's free-game for all.  If the media or ISAF, or anyone beats DND releasing relevant information once this is done, then so-be-it.  As for your calling 'BS' to my 'big news' comment, I happen to live in Quebec and yes the current death(s) are being played up on a much much bigger scale here.  I could send you some links or newspapers but it likely wouldn't change your opinion?  C'est la Vie.


----------



## Strike (23 Aug 2007)

ArtyNewbie said:
			
		

> ...The embedded media pers are not mbr's of the CF a comms lockdown does not affect them as it does everyone else, mainley because the jimmies don't have the ability to "turn off" the comms pipe on the media types. That said there has been in the past an understanding between the media types and the mission RSM and they play the game...



My understanding, having spoken with media types (who are actually friends  ;D -- the hazzards of having been a UIO) who have worked with the military both at home and abroad, is that they are indeed obligated to follow these same rules.  They compared it to being able to be ticketed by an MP while driving on a military base.

So, with all that in mind, should a member of the media breach these agreements that they made in the contract that allowed them to become embedded, they should be turfed.

Okay, maybe they aren't friends.  But they are aquaintances and like to buy me beer!  Who can argue with that?


----------



## Michael OLeary (23 Aug 2007)

Punisher, who scoops who doesn't matter when the information being passed is wrong.  In your post, attempting to back up mysteriousmind's premature posting, you also stated:



			
				Punisher_6D said:
			
		

> It's pretty obvious that the soldiers killed were Vandoos .....



One soldier was not a "Vandoo"?
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/08/22/soldier-killed.html



> Master Cpl. Christian Duchesne . . .  of the 5th Field Ambulance



This is why we take a hard line on the sharing of rumours and tidbits before the official DND news releases.


----------



## George Wallace (23 Aug 2007)

Punisher_6D said:
			
		

> ....... As for your calling 'BS' to my 'big news' comment, I happen to live in Quebec and yes the current death(s) are being played up on a much much bigger scale here.  I could send you some links or newspapers but it likely wouldn't change your opinion?  C'est la Vie.



I disagree with you.  This is 'big news' all across Canada, just as it has been for all of our previous casualties.  I will agree with you that perhaps now, Quebecers are finally realizing and reacting to the events of casualties coming home to the same degree as the ROC does, so yes it may now be played up to a much larger scale than it ever was before in Quebec.  It, however, is not played up any less in any other part of the nation.


----------



## mudrecceman (23 Aug 2007)

Punisher_6D said:
			
		

> Once a lockdown is lifted in theatre it's free-game for all.  If the media or ISAF, or anyone beats DND releasing relevant information once this is done, then so-be-it.



Considering what this is about, those are some of the poorest choices of words I have read to date. 



			
				Punisher_6D said:
			
		

> As for your calling 'BS' to my 'big news' comment, I happen to live in Quebec and yes *the current death(s) are being played up * on a much much bigger scale here.  I could send you some links or newspapers but it likely wouldn't change your opinion?  C'est la Vie.



More poorly chosen words.  Played up suggests things that don't need to be suggested IMO.

-10 atleast.


----------



## vonGarvin (23 Aug 2007)

Punisher_6D said:
			
		

> Captain Sensible,
> 
> No.  This happened at the same time.  Once a lockdown is lifted in theatre it's free-game for all.  If the media or ISAF, or anyone beats DND releasing relevant information once this is done, then so-be-it.  As for your calling 'BS' to my 'big news' comment, I happen to live in Quebec and yes the current death(s) are being played up on a much much bigger scale here.  I could send you some links or newspapers but it likely wouldn't change your opinion?  C'est la Vie.


I disagree with your assertion that they happened at the same time.  I watched CTV NewsNet live ("breaking news") and the press conference happened AFTER they announced that "Radio Canada reports that..."
Your assertion that this news is bigger in Quebec than in the rest of Canada is pure and utter BULLSHIT.  Now, I would agree that MAYBE (JUST MAYBE) this news is bigger in Quebec now than when non-Quebeckers were being killed.  That's only because of the media.


----------



## geo (23 Aug 2007)

Might I suggest that the subject was big across the maritimes and cenrtal/western Canada (excluding Quebec) before the deployment of Roto 4 and that Quebec's mainstream media has only just now cought up.


----------



## 2 Cdo (23 Aug 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> Might I suggest that the subject was big across the maritimes and cenrtal/western Canada (excluding Quebec) before the deployment of Roto 4 and that Quebec's mainstream media has only just now cought up.



Geo you said that a lot nicer than what my initial thoughts were! ;D


----------



## geo (23 Aug 2007)

Heh!  I are diplomatik, aren't I


----------



## Reccesoldier (23 Aug 2007)

Punisher_6D said:
			
		

> Captain Sensible,
> 
> No.  This happened at the same time.  Once a lockdown is lifted in theatre it's free-game for all.  If the media or ISAF, or anyone beats DND releasing relevant information once this is done, then so-be-it.



I can guarantee that this was not the case.  The lockdown had not been lifted.  End of story. Full stop


----------



## vonGarvin (23 Aug 2007)

To add to this, I recall a member of SRC saying that they knew what was going on soon after it happened.  How?  Not obeying lockdown rules.  Don't like the rules: go home.  Full stop.


----------



## The Bread Guy (23 Aug 2007)

Thought this ironic tidbit (highlighted in red) would be appreciated, in light of the tone of the debate to this point...

*Canadian reporter who survives Afghan attack to leave the war-torn country*
Martin Ouellet, Canadian Press, 23 Aug 07
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/070823/national/afghan_cda_journalists

A Radio-Canada reporter who survived a roadside bomb attack that killed two Canadian soldiers and an Afghan interpreter said Thursday the horrific nature of the blast is hard to describe.  Patrice Roy, 44, told reporters at the Canadian base in Kandahar that he was writing his report inside the moving armoured vehicle just seconds before the explosion.

(....)

Roy says his family had questioned his decision to go to the war-torn country, where 69 Canadian soldiers and one diplomat have been killed since 2002.  "It's difficult because, for them, it was the part of my mission that they underlined before the departure - 'Why are you going there? It's too dangerous,"' Roy said.  Shortly after the explosion Roy tried to reach his wife in Canada to let her know he was OK.

Recalling his unkept promises to his family that he would be safe and that he would not go to the front lines, Roy said he "felt terribly bad."

"I was worried for my children not to see the news this morning in Canada," he said. 

Uh-huh....................


----------



## geo (24 Aug 2007)

mymymy... outa the mouth of babes!


----------



## punisher_6d (24 Aug 2007)

*Radio-Canada reporter relives Afghan horror*

*Patrice Roy yesterday recounted the blast that killed two Canadian soldiers in an interview, translated here from French, with a CBC radio reporter
Aug 24, 2007 04:30 AM * 

Radio-Canada reporter Patrice Roy was sitting beside Canadian Forces medic Christian Duchesne when the armoured vehicle they were riding in hit a road mine near Kandahar, Afghanistan. Duchesne and a second soldier, Mario Mercier, were killed, as well as an Afghan interpreter. Roy suffered only shock but his cameraman, Charles Dubois, was seriously wounded and had his leg amputated below the knee.

Roy yesterday relived the horrifying experience in an interview, translated here from French, with a CBC radio reporter:


Roy: We left very early in the morning with a company whose mission was to take a mountain, or re-take a mountain. It was 16 kilometres between there and our departure point. 

We were told it would be pretty light going, that they didn't think the Taliban would be listening.

But we quickly noticed that the operation would be a lot more complicated. 

The Taliban started firing rockets all over the place, not directly at our vehicle because we were following behind, but at the ones ahead. So for 13 hours we drove around a village in the LAV3; we were near the mountain but couldn't go up ........

more on link:  http://www.thestar.com/Special/Afghanistan/article/249393


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (24 Aug 2007)

Finding out that someone you know is no longer with us by seeing their picture on the news F&&&& ING SUCKS. It isn't possible to notify everyone who knew a soldier, no matter of how close, but news organisations should respect that the families need to be notified before announcements are made - wait for the green light to make announcements.  It is just courtesy.

I do understand the distinction between saying exact names, with pictures, and giving a general statement "There was an attack and Canadian soldiers were killed, more details later".  It wont earn the news broadcaster any more money releasing the information 3 hours sooner,  and it makes a world of difference to the families.

As for the fate of the reporters who got "the scoop",  Yes turfed from the theater for sure, put the CBC on notice (the reporters didn't do it all by themselves, other people chose to run the story) informing them that another such incident and they will loose their embedding privileges.  And read their replacements the riot act.  Get a warrent officer to read them the penalties for violating the above mentioned laws. I do LOVE the RSM's "I will take this pace stick, shove it up your .... and then OPEN it" speech....   that is to say when I'm not getting it.


----------



## Pte_Martin (24 Aug 2007)

This is what happens when people (media) doesn't wait until the CF Makes  the announcement http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=2436 Things get messed up and people jump to conclusions,


----------



## Greymatters (26 Aug 2007)

Infantry_ said:
			
		

> This is what happens when people (media) doesn't wait until the CF Makes  the announcement http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=2436 Things get messed up and people jump to conclusions,



That link makes a good point - just because the R22R is over there, not every soldier is a member of that unit.  Journalists have a problem with this distinction which is similiar to their inability to tell the differentiate between a Tank, an IFV and APC.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (26 Aug 2007)

I also like the fact that in the media brief they give a website Link which doesn't seem to be able to be accessed from the outside world (or it may be connect).

EDITED TO ADD 

Never mind seems to work now  :


----------



## Greymatters (26 Aug 2007)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> The Media today seem to flaunt a warped opinion of what the definition of Freedom of the Press is.  Yes, they have freedom to report, but they must also remember that they don't have the Right to everyone's information.  In essence their interpretation of one Freedom is an intrusion on another Freedom and contradicts those rights.  There are Privacy Laws.  There are matters of National Security.  The Press must know their bounds and abide by them.  They do not have the Right to Know everything.  They do not have the Right to Report everything.



I think the problem here is that journalists (especially the paparazzi elements) have trouble distinguishing between when a person is a private entity and when they are a public entity.  

Persons who are 'public' (i.e. movie stars, politicians, sports figures, etc.) strive for publicity and are regarded as being unable to hide behind the concept of 'private' when most everything they do makes them 'public', i.e. Gene Simmons of KISS is so 'public' he has even put his family on a reality TV show. As an alternate example, this is one reason why Shania Twain lives in Switzerland, so that she can have a 'private' lifestyle despite a high 'public' profile which she could not do in North America.  This is also why public figures have such a hard time stopping others from writing unofficial biographies about their lives.  

Now, take the case of a 'private' person who becomes 'public', but did not actively seek a public role.  This usually occurs as a result of court cases, but can include disasters, heroic acts, or other noteworthy incidents that propell the individual into the spotlight.  Willing or unwilling, they become regarded as a 'public' figure and are subsequently regarded by the press in general as a 'public' figure, and as such, not covered by all sections of provincial or federal privacy acts (i.e. Clifford Olsen, Terry Fox, Emily Carr, Conrad Black, etc.).  Privacy would still cover private phone numbers and addresses (among other details), but the privacy of incident details or actions that others witnessed become questionable...


----------



## garb811 (27 Aug 2007)

When they post a link to correct misconceptions, they need to make sure the info in that link is accurate.  The obvious ones to me:



> FROM OTHER PROVINCES (approximately 170 CF members)
> (Regular Force)
> 
> · 1 Service Battalion – Halifax
> ...


----------

