Army.ca Forums

The Newsroom => Military Current Affairs & News => Topic started by: The Ruxted Group on July 10, 2006, 18:35:59

Title: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: The Ruxted Group on July 10, 2006, 18:35:59
Please post responses from HERE (http://ruxted.ca/index.php?/archives/20-Ruxted-On-The-Medias-Handling-Of-Cpl.-Bonecas-Death.html)
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: milnews.ca on July 10, 2006, 18:51:57
+1

Well put
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: GAP on July 10, 2006, 19:04:37
I think the editorial sums up most people's feelings on this site. How we individually express our feelings, is accurately portrayed in the Editorial.  :salute:  :cdn:
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Kal on July 10, 2006, 19:05:41
Well written.

My quarrel is not with the family, this just may be there way of accepting and grieving of their loss.  My quarrel is with with the media for profiting off a very controversial story of a soldier who can no longer defend himself and his words.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: medicineman on July 10, 2006, 19:06:07
That pretty much says it all.

Good work as per normal.

MM
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: paracowboy on July 10, 2006, 19:45:37
Cpl Boneca was serving his second tour in support of the mission to Afghanistan. This tells me that this fine soldier felt strongly enough about the mission, that he believed his service to the people of Afghanistan was sufficiently worthwhile, that he volunteered twice for hazardous duty. Hardly the actions of a man who felt he was being mistreated, or that he was duped. We may never know how Cpl Boneca truly felt. But, regardless of Cpl Boneca's personal feelings towards the end of his second tour, he died in the service of his nation. He died a soldier doing his duty, trying to make a difference in a foreign country, and thereby, make his own safer. He died a hero. His memory must be honoured, his sacrifice never forgotten, his life celebrated.

I  hope that in future, upon reading this thread and the editorial that spawned it, the media will give more consideration to simple, common decency and less towards sensationalism for political reasons, or to sell advertising space. Careless and callous articles, such as those being bandied about by these vultures, merely add to a fallen soldier’s family's already sizeable grief. Those that seek to score political points, or to improve their marketing or publicity, on the death of a soldier should be ashamed of themselves as they tarnish the sacrifice of a brave Canadian soldier.

The media’s current feeding-frenzy of speculation is akin to that of jackals over carrion, and it is despicable. I would ask that the media cease this unbecoming behaviour, and allow Cpl Boneca's family, friends, and fellow service members to grieve over the loss of their loved one in peace, and to stop using the loss of a fine soldier to fuel what appears to be an attempt to further a political agenda.

For shame.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: MarkOttawa on July 10, 2006, 20:25:24
A post at "The Torch":

" Death in Afghanistan: The media scent blood"
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2006/07/death-in-afghanistan-media-scent-blood.html

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Remius on July 10, 2006, 20:46:21
Too bad.  You know, this soldier died in service of his country.  The media turning this into a political or sensational piece is disgusting.  Even if he was disillusioned with his tour, even if he was unhappy with the military he earned the right to make that call.  He was there, doing his job as a soldier and made the ultimate sacrifice.  That should be the focus.  His life as a soldier and the deeds he did, not what he might have said, or more ,what the media says he might have said.

Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: annonymous1 on July 10, 2006, 21:03:38
 :salute:
corporal boneca will forever be a hero, to the people that knew him and loved him, as well as to his country -  regardless of the media circus surrounding his tragic demise. those who knew tony ( i am one of those fortunate souls that did know him) knew very well months ago that going to afghanistan was something he felt he had to do. we also knew it was to be his last tour.........but he felt that this last tour was extremely important and extremely neccessary. the bottom line is that tony WANTED to do this.....and he knew the risks involved. the media has been harping about canadian troops being involved from the get go, and it is very unfortunate that they don't possess the simple human decency of letting tony's family, and his girlfriend and her family grieve. how dare they use this tragedy to fuel their fire?? it almost makes me ashamed to be canadian. tony was an incredible human being. he did not need to wear any kind of uniform to be a hero.............he already was one to many people. that he chose to serve his country in this way only amplifies that. tony will be sorely missed, but forever in our hearts.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: silentbutdeadly on July 10, 2006, 21:07:14
i think alot of the soldiers have the same feelings , and most of you hear don't hear about the truth of whats going on! i just seen the news about what he said to his parents and you know what alot of guys have the same feeling. I Do! and thats why i am home! i feel so said for the Cpl its unreally that if he was given the chance to go home and he was not given permission and now hes dead! makes me wonder how certain people can sleep with themselves at night!
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: silentbutdeadly on July 10, 2006, 21:08:29
and if you need a eyewitness account i will be glad to tell the truth!
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Bruce Monkhouse on July 10, 2006, 21:14:34
and if you need a eyewitness account i will be glad to tell the truth!

About?
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: silentbutdeadly on July 10, 2006, 21:17:43
What do you Need to know? Since people need another persons account of whats wrong over there? You ask the question and i will answer.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Cloud Cover on July 10, 2006, 21:18:59
i think alot of the soldiers have the same feelings , and most of you hear don't hear about the truth of whats going on! i just seen the news about what he said to his parents and you know what alot of guys have the same feeling. I Do! and thats why i am home! i feel so said for the Cpl its unreally that if he was given the chance to go home and he was not given permission and now hes dead! makes me wonder how certain people can sleep with themselves at night!


Did you get sent home?
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: silentbutdeadly on July 10, 2006, 21:22:50
i got sent home due to Combat Stress , when your not sleeping for like 6 days str8 because your out in the hills for 35 days on 3 days off. i was told to go in to camp and then send home
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: LCIS-Tech on July 10, 2006, 21:24:01
Look: This young soldier was what? 21? Well OF COURSE he was sick and tired of being away from home. For crying out loud, he was 21! OF COURSE he wanted to get the hell out of there. I can tell you that there is probably not a soldier alive who, when in the "wind-down" of a deployment, can't wait to get home to their family and friends (it always seems like forever, when there are only a couple of weeks left). Yet the media seems to take this as something new? They are taking this (his "alleged" statements) completely entire this out of context (assuming that they were accurately reported). In my opinion that young lad sounded like every other soldier I have seen on deployment in that he just wanted to get his tour over and done with, and get back to the land of beer and pizza. The media however, assumes "what he really meant was......." blah, blah, blah....

I guess some news agencies will always pick and choose what they report, and how they will report it, in order to put their own personal slant on things.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Jarnhamar on July 10, 2006, 21:25:27
I really enjoy the Ruxted articles. They write almost as well as I do :)

With regards to what this guy may have said, you know what people talk crap.  People have bad days and bad weeks and they ***** about it. The number one way to get ride of stress is bitching about whats going on. Sometimes it's meaningful, most of the time it isn't.

If I was living in the mountians for 5 months eating rations smelling stinky guys dodging scorpians I'd say a LOT of stuff I don't mean.  My heart goes out to the family. Rehashing some of what this soldier said to the media was probably a bad idea. (No, it was) but like it was mentioned, who can blame them. God forbid if the media get anywhere near my dad!

I'm certain this soldier would have been home for all of 5 minutes before missing his brothers and wishing he was back with them.
People talk crap when their stressed and they vent.  "Don't mean nothing"

Edit: Sorry to hear you bad a bad go. You're obviously in a great position to comment on the situation. You must agree how messed up things would become if we sent guys home on will?  It's unfortinuate our guys (you guys) have to stay even when all you want to do is come home but if you guys weren't out in the crap keeping the enemy away from the gates whos going to stop them from comming through them?
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Cloud Cover on July 10, 2006, 21:27:25
i got sent home due to Combat Stress , when your not sleeping for like 6 days str8 because your out in the hills for 35 days on 3 days off. i was told to go in to camp and then send home

 I remember you now. I hear you had a tough go of things. Welcome home, and thank you for great work. Try and relax, okay?
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: George Wallace on July 10, 2006, 21:34:42
..... Yet the media seems to take this as something new? They are taking this (his "alleged" statements) completely entire this out of context (assuming that they were accurately reported). In my opinion that young lad sounded like every other soldier I have seen on deployment in that he just wanted to get his tour over and done with, and get back to the land of beer and pizza. The media however, assumes "what he really meant was......." blah, blah, blah....
I guess some news agencies will always pick and choose what they report, and how they will report it, in order to put their own personal slant on things.

First off, they are not reporting what "He Said", they are reporting what "His Girlfriend's FATHER Said".  A whole different ballgame there.  It is Third Hand or even Fourth Hand "Speculation" which would be unbelievable in all other circles.  Please pay attention to detail.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Jarnhamar on July 10, 2006, 21:39:12
Quote
First off, they are not reporting what "He Said", they are reporting what "His Girlfriend's FATHER Said". 

Exactly!

i just had a phone interview with a newspaper. Went well, very nice guy.  I refused to give my exact departure date citing security reasons whch seemed to annoy him somewhat. Asked if he could call my parents, I said sure. He turned around and asked them for my departure date knowing full well I didn't want it to be known.

If the media don't get what they want from you they will find someone who will give it to them.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: GAP on July 10, 2006, 21:41:06
People talk crap when their stressed and they vent.  "Don't mean nothing"

And that statement is as valid today, as was when we used it 30+ years ago in similar situations. I daresay people said something very similar, if not the same, 200 years ago....it's how the stress is dealt with
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: milnews.ca on July 10, 2006, 21:50:40
Ghost778 - you got it zackly right about reporters continuing until they get what they want.  In future, don't be shy about calling his boss, and saying how well it went except for the little detail about when yer leaving.  Maybe I'm naive, but maybe it'll help (although I've had worse mistakes ignored).

You can also see it in the line of questioning on the live interviews on Newsworld - "How did he seem to feel about the mission?", "What did he tell you about what he was seeing, compared to what he expected?"  Once part of the herd goes one way, the rest of the herd follows.

Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: LCIS-Tech on July 10, 2006, 21:52:35
First off, they are not reporting what "He Said", they are reporting what "His Girlfriend's FATHER Said".  A whole different ballgame there.  It is Third Hand or even Fourth Hand "Speculation" which would be unbelievable in all other circles.  Please pay attention to detail.

umm...thus the "allegedly said" comment. Read the entire post.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Fishbone Jones on July 10, 2006, 21:52:38
And that statement is as valid today, as was when we used it 30+ years ago in similar situations. I daresay people said something very similar, if not the same, 200 years ago....it's how the stress is dealt with

I dare say further back than that.

"Odi et amo, quare id facere forasse requiris...Nescio, sed fieri sentio et excrucior"
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Echo9 on July 10, 2006, 21:57:08
I was on the treadmill this morning and saw this segment on CBC Wallyworld.  My immediate reaction was one of despair- for our civilization as we know it.  I know, melodramatic, but bear me out.

We have a situation here where a good man is killed in service of his country.  Before he is even in the ground, there's the canned peacenik response- support our troops! bring them home!  dishonour their sacrifice and declare it for naught! (OK, so I added the last part)

Look, Afghanistan is not a clean mission.  We could do everything there perfectly and still not achieve the lasting legacy that we want.  I've seen interesting posts over the past few days that ironically Iraq's mid term future is likely to be much rosier, since there's at least the potential for civilized society.  Anyway, point is, reasonable people can argue about the Afghan mission from a strategic perspective.  

What you can't argue about is the prospects for what would happen following a hasty Canadian withdrawal.  Two scenarios here (too brief, but you get the idea):
1.  We leave along with the rest of the west, and Afghanistan reverts to being the armpit of the world as it has been for the last few centuries.  We end up needing to go back in a decade or two to break some things again.
2.  We leave but the rest of NATO stays.  Canada loses any pull with any future NATO decisions.

Where my dismay comes from is that a mere 2 generations ago, Canada stood firm against fascism.  We lost more soldiers on the average day than we have lost for the entire Afghan mission (or likely will).  And this lasted for over a year.  Average canadians on the street understood that sometimes, you have to be willing to sacrifice in order to maintain your way of life.  Understood that when being stared down by a bully you fight back- particularly when that bully is really a 98 pound weakling.

I'm not sure that Canadians understand that anymore.  Sure, most of the people visiting this board do, but I think that you'd be hard pressed to get over 10% of the population that really understands this.  And that's why I think that our society has a death wish- if it's not the islamofascists, it will be the next gang that understands that we've gotten too soft to stand up for ourselves with anything stronger than talk.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Chris Pook on July 10, 2006, 22:46:06
I remember you now. I hear you had a tough go of things. Welcome home, and thank you for great work. Try and relax, okay?

I remember you too SBD and can only echo Whiskey's remarks.  Welcome home and thanks. 
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: MarkOttawa on July 10, 2006, 22:51:34
Echo9: Brilliant.

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: kilekaldar on July 10, 2006, 23:03:35
Speaking as a RegForce member scheduled for a tour to A'stan in August, I find the recent line of reporting on Cpl. Boneca's death in action to be a digusting attempt to sensationalize the story even further in a cynical pursuit for more ratings. This sort of speculation is not only bad reporting, but gross and ghoulish. As it has been stated before in this forum, the only person who can tell us how he felt is dead. But that is irrelevant, his feelings were his own, private, personnal, and should not be subject to public speculation by reporters after his passing for political gain, or for the media to generate more revenue.
Anything else is so disrespectful that I have no words for the uglyness of it.
The closest I can come is in french, we would say that this is 'sale', or dirty.

Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: silentbutdeadly on July 10, 2006, 23:40:07
yeah don't get me wrong , i dislike the media as the next guy, but i think in away its the military's fault for all this to, i worked with the yanks and the brits over there and we have the most media there then those to nations forsure, i had to kick troops out of lav's and but them in G wagons , so the media was protected. So yeah i hate when the media gets involed when one of our fine troops over there get killed, but alot of those things said were true , yes they were second, third and fouth hand knowledge but somewhat  very true. Yes guys at the end of a tour want to go home no doubt!  its hard to explain without getting in trouble but alot of things were wrong with this mission and not by the troops they worked there asses off.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: big bad john (John Hill) on July 10, 2006, 23:43:20
I didn't trust reporters when I was serving.  I still don't trust reporters now.  If they don't have the story they want, they will find a way to get it in many circumstance's.  When I talk to the press I want a witness and I want it very clear what is said from experience.  In this case as has been mentioned I have heard nothing directly from the young Corporal.  Just some distressed family and loved ones.  We can feel their pain and understand it.  Not like it, but understand it.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: dglad on July 10, 2006, 23:48:46
I would never presume to guess or interpret what words may have passed between Cpl Boneca and his loved ones here in Thunder Bay, or elsewhere.  Nor would I presume to speculate what this remarkable young man may have been thinking or feeling through his final weeks and days.  The closest I can come to the latter is my own feelings, in my last few weeks in Bosnia; that was nowhere near as dangerous a theatre as Afghanistan when I was there, yet I know that I was heartily sick of the place and wanted nothing more than to come home.  I think it is only reasonable that Cpl Boneca, along with almost all of his comrades in arms currently deployed in Afghanistan would feel the same way at this late date in their deployment, only much more so, given the conditions in that poor, war-battered country.

That all said, none of it takes away the point I made a day or so ago on this forum...knowing Cpl Boneca as well as I do, I have no doubt whatsoever that he applied himself fully and well to the job he had to do, no matter what his feelings may have been.  That, I believe, is the mark of a true professional--doing your job, and doing it well, when it may very well be the LAST thing you want to do.  I spent enough time with Cpl Boneca to know that this was the type of person he was.  None of what has appeared in the media will change, one iota, my respect, admiration and fondness for this courageous young soldier. 

Dave Laderoute
LCol
CO LSSR 2001-2004

Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: George Wallace on July 10, 2006, 23:53:25
dglad

We all tend to agree with you.  The real SHAME here is the Press and 'People' who are promoting a political agenda in a time of grief. 
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: KevinB on July 10, 2006, 23:56:46
dglad

We all tend to agree with you.  The real SHAME here is the Press and 'People' who are promoting a political agenda in a time of grief. 

+1
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: silentbutdeadly on July 10, 2006, 23:57:53
+2
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: GAP on July 11, 2006, 00:11:18
dglad and all those who have been in country (whereever) and seen the elephant.  No civilian, especially the media, will ever understand the weariness and frustration to "just have it over" towards the end of a tour. Part of that process is thinking and talking wild *** things.

But how do you communicate that to the uninitiated.?

It is mostly misconstrued, misinterpreted, and totally misunderstood. (and that has not changed to this day)
Within a month of my coming back from Viet Nam, I totally shut up about it for close to 30 years. The few times I tried to talk to people, the response was totally unsatisfactory, and I just gave up. It wasn't until my son was in the CF that I could relate to what he was going through, and if pride could be measured, I'd have a mountain.

Canadians ARE proud of you members who serve and protect, but all we hear is those who would tear it all down in the name of appeasement.

Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Jarnhamar on July 11, 2006, 00:13:35
Quote
i had to kick troops out of lav's and but them in G wagons , so the media was protected

Maybe we are bending over backwards a little too far to accomodate the media. I think the media and our relations with them is very important but honestly, kicking troops out of their own lav so a reporter can tag along?

Not cool.  
I can only hope Canadians don't condone putting our troops in more danger than required in order to get a few snapshots and a story from an "embeded" reporter.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: beenthere on July 11, 2006, 01:50:52
I did a 6 month tour in the Middle East living in a whole lot better conditions than anyone in Afghanistan could even dream of and if anyone would have heard my words in the last few calls that I made home they would have had the impression that when I got back to Canada I never wanted to even remember that I'd ever been in the M.E. much less think about ever going there again. Had I died there my family's impression of my tour would have been that I had absolutely detested it. "That's the last thing that he ever told us."
In fact I loved my 6 months over there and many times I've wanted to do it all over again. However during the last few weeks before leaving I developed a huge case of "gethomitus" and like many folks I became rather negative about the whole scene. It's probably a very natural reaction for anyone who has been thrown into a lifestyle where work,leisure and rest are all combined and compacted into the constraints of a military base that seems to consume one over time. Add the stress of combat and a generally unstable atmosphere that surrounds the whole area and anyone who is about to leave it all behind is likely to develop an attitude.
It's also a time when it's very easy to make mistakes or become complacent so watch yourself and your buddies. :salute:
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Infanteer on July 11, 2006, 07:18:08
I concur with the last few posts; everybody experiences the doldrums while deployed.

Unfortunately, some in the press don't understand the meaning of "Rest in Peace".


 >:(
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: tingbudong on July 11, 2006, 07:43:30
echo wrote: 
Quote
Where my dismay comes from is that a mere 2 generations ago, Canada stood firm against fascism.

On a hypothetical note (pre-apologies to those who detest 'what if' scenarios)

I've always felt that the current generation (my generation) takes a rather soft postion towards Islamo-Facisim, yet still maintains a strong anti-nazism postion, being very quick (and rightly so) to jump on anyone or anything conveying or preaching any sort of neo or psuedo nazi   ideologies 

I believe it would be interesting to substitute the present Islamo-facism with a comparable rise in western facism (ie. German/Italian 1930's ideologies).  What would my generations response be?     
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: milnews.ca on July 11, 2006, 08:18:00
Latest approach of the media (according to news tease on CBC Radio here in T.Bay):  "The family wants people to know they're not being censored by the military."

I understand that a military member is at the house to help deal with media and other people coming through.  But I guess a family wanting privacy is censorship, right?  >:(
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: 3rd Horseman on July 11, 2006, 09:08:59
Been there,  Nicely said!

  It is IMHO that soldiers who have been so intensely involved in activities such as nation building through their activities in combat that on departure they must detach, its a natural human reaction to deal with leaving the job undone and handing over to the next group. Combat and combat activities are the height of commitment mentally, physically and emotionally it requires the brain to undo that intensity on preparing to go home to the real world. As Been there has said, in the last few weeks we all have doubts, its natural.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Springroll on July 11, 2006, 09:27:16
First off, they are not reporting what "He Said", they are reporting what "His Girlfriend's FATHER Said".  A whole different ballgame there.  It is Third Hand or even Fourth Hand "Speculation" which would be unbelievable in all other circles. 

Last night on The National, it was his girlfriend that was saying that.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: tonykeene on July 11, 2006, 10:05:01
May I ask for a bit of consideration here for the reporters?  They are, after all, only reporting what they were specifically told by members of the family.  They didn't make this stuff up.
Whoever provided these quotes to the media did so for a reason.  Maybe we should ask THEM what their motivation is.

Of course, it was inevitable that, after years of involvement in Afghanistan with nothing but unstinting praise for our soldiers, someone had to eventually sound a dissenting trumpet.  These things come in waves.

Please don't thump the media too hard.  After all, these folks have for a very long time been singing our praises, not only in news coverage but in editorials.  And we don't hesitate to make use of them when we want to get our point across.  Your average journalist has no idea what training, preparation etc a reservist goes through before deploying.  And given the pressure of their jobs, they have very little chance to find out unless someone pointedly explains it to them.



Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: milnews.ca on July 11, 2006, 10:15:17
To give everyone a bit of a break from the media bashing the military, and us bashing the media, I've just posted a brief (LT 2 minutes) video, using public domain photos, backed by the "Skye Boat Song" (official slow march of the Lake Superior Scottish Regiment).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPsogi_7jDo

A bit of a chance to pause, reflect and remember....

Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: GAP on July 11, 2006, 10:16:23
May I ask for a bit of consideration here for the reporters?  They are, after all, only reporting what they were specifically told by members of the family.  They didn't make this stuff up.
Whoever provided these quotes to the media did so for a reason.  Maybe we should ask THEM what their motivation is.

Of course, it was inevitable that, after years of involvement in Afghanistan with nothing but unstinting praise for our soldiers, someone had to eventually sound a dissenting trumpet.  These things come in waves.

Please don't thump the media too hard.  After all, these folks have for a very long time been singing our praises, not only in news coverage but in editorials.  And we don't hesitate to make use of them when we want to get our point across.  Your average journalist has no idea what training, preparation etc a reservist goes through before deploying.  And given the pressure of their jobs, they have very little chance to find out unless someone pointedly explains it to them.

While I don't disagree with your sentiments, you have a better perspective of their process than most of us.

What I question is the use of 2nd, and 3rd hand comments, no context, as statements of fact, when the person cannot confirm nor refute them.  This is not good journalism, simply sensationalism at a time when we should be remembering and honoring the soldier. The attention getting antics of other people, whether through grief or something else has no place here and should not have been sensationalized as it was.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: George Wallace on July 11, 2006, 10:18:17
I'm sorry tonykeene, but you are a biased observer here.  In the most part we have not narrowed our sights in on the Press, we have been including them in with the people and organizations who seem to be promoting a Political Agenda.  The Press are as guilty as the persons making those statements when they replicate them in the following manner:

Quote
"He expected to be on patrol, not fighting a war for someone else,'' said DeCorte. "He wasn't ready for that.''

That statement was it's own paragraph in the news article.  It was meant to stand out and catch the eye.  The highlighted (By me.) portion is a Political Statement replicated by the Press to further a Political Agenda.  Are the Press free, or are they Pawns to this 'group'?  Your call.

The Press can be considered "guilty by association" in this case, don't you think?

[EDIT to add link to news article in question.]  http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060710/canada_soldier_boneca_060710/20060710?hub=TopStories
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: MarkOttawa on July 11, 2006, 10:31:28
Quote
It is disgusting  in the extreme and preposterous for anyone to suggest morale here is low.

Matthew Fisher, CanWest  reporter with the Canadian Forces in Afghanistan, says in an interview this morning  (audio at link)
http://www.cfra.com/chum_audio/Matthew_Fisher_July11.mp3

on CFRA, Ottawa.  He is talking about media coverage of Cpl. Anthony Joseph Boneca's death.

You must listen to the whole thing.  Two more samples:

Quote
This is real war..and then to be bogged down by the typical small-minded Canadian wishy-washy issues, I had hoped Canada was emerging from this period of self-doubt but apparently it isn't.

Quote
...he received exactly the same infantry training as everyone else who came here.

And just at this moment the Globe's Margaret Wente gives up (full text not officially online).  Pitiful.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060711.wxcowent11/BNStory/National/home

Quote
Repairing Afghanistan is a noble cause. It's also mission impossible. I suspect that, before too long, more and more Canadians will decide that it's not our fight.

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: tonykeene on July 11, 2006, 10:44:51
Well, please understand that when someone says something that is different, or that goes against the flow, it makes news automatically.  As a young reporter 30 years ago, I would have put that quote on its own too, for very simple reasons.  It stands out.
The folks who write the news have, as individuals, no agenda versus the military or anyone else.  In fact, the many journalists now with our soldiers on operations are, by and large, great supporters of them.  Some have even been accused, by those opposed to military intervention, of jingoism.  They just can't win.
I've been through this myself.  When reporting on the courts, the defence layers accused me of being a tool of the Crown.  The Crown Attorney bitched that I was a left-leaning bleeding heart liberal who wanted to see scumbags let off easy.  When reporting labour, the unions accused me of being a tool of the management, and the owners bitched that I was a lefty union sympathizer.  All I did was write down what people told me, and I tried to put it in an interesting and appealing format.

The media, as institutions, have a natural liberal tendency in democracies.  After all, in right wing countries control of the media is endemic.  But I have never, ever heard an editor, in all my decades of experience, tell a reporter to go out and "get" the military, the politician, the company owner etc.  While it is true that one paper hates the Government of the day, and the other praises it, both will report a car crash, a fire or a soldier's death in almost the same way.  That's not bias, it's just news.

Most media funerals are self catered.  The reporters went to the family to find out how the family felt.  The family had the opportunity to say whatever they wanted.  This person obviously had a message he wanted to get out.  I'm sure the reporters did not ask:" Please say something negative about your soldier."  The message could just as easily have been a positive one.

When other family members of other soldiers have been widely quoted as praising their loved one's belief in what he or she was doing, we did not ***** at the reporters for being biased.  Talking to the family of someone who has died tragically is a heart-wrenching experience, believe me.  I've had to do it myself.  Just because someone has said something that upsets us, we should not ***** at the reporters for doing what they are paid to do...reporting.

Most reporters in Canada are young people trying to do a good job.  They don't have the benefit of 20 years experience in the police, fire department or the military.  They are not trained and experienced lawyers or engineers or anything else.  They ask questions, and they get answers.  They of course sometimes get it wrong, but so do we.

Let's look where the information or the quote came from.  And remember, the reporters will quote someone who rebuts this statement, just as readily.  All it takes is someone with the knowledge, and the guts, to step up to the microphone and speak out.


Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: milnews.ca on July 11, 2006, 10:45:12
Matt Fisher interview WELL worth listening to!  Thanks for sharing!
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Springroll on July 11, 2006, 10:45:28
To give everyone a bit of a break from the media bashing the military, and us bashing the media, I've just posted a brief (LT 2 minutes) video, using public domain photos, backed by the "Skye Boat Song" (official slow march of the Lake Superior Scottish Regiment).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPsogi_7jDo

A bit of a chance to pause, reflect and remember....



Thank you for posting that.
It was very humbling and does help to put things back into perspective.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Thucydides on July 11, 2006, 11:02:36
Sorry Tony, today's London Free Press has the lead story, front page, above the fold, larger than normal headline font and "boxed" for maximum visual impact:

"He was 'misled'" : http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/News/National/2006/07/11/1678530-sun.html

What point are they trying to make?

Oh yes, the sub head: But the Tory government brushes aside accusations from Cpl. Anthony Boneca's friends and family

I wonder what sort of impression this will make on the people who walk past the news stand? Where are the super sized headlines and arresting visuals about the success of various PRT's and the day to day activities of the troops? I am pretty close to writing this paper and others who publish this tripe off as "hostile media".

Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Michael Dorosh on July 11, 2006, 11:30:14
I didn't trust reporters when I was serving.  I still don't trust reporters now.  If they don't have the story they want, they will find a way to get it in many circumstance's.  When I talk to the press I want a witness and I want it very clear what is said from experience.  In this case as has been mentioned I have heard nothing directly from the young Corporal.  Just some distressed family and loved ones.  We can feel their pain and understand it.  Not like it, but understand it.

If I may, they're not reporters, BBJ, they're journalists, and that is what the problem is.  Reporters tell what happened. "Journalists" spin things. At some point along the way the "reporters" decided they were more important than just laying out facts, and became "journalists" who exist largely to protect their own interests.

Quote from: Tony Keene
May I ask for a bit of consideration here for the reporters?  They are, after all, only reporting what they were specifically told by members of the family.  They didn't make this stuff up. Whoever provided these quotes to the media did so for a reason.  Maybe we should ask THEM what their motivation is.

See above - we don't have "reporters" we now have "journalists" who put personal interests ahead of national ones while claiming to be acting in the interest of the public's "need to know."

Quote
And given the pressure of their jobs, they have very little chance to find out unless someone pointedly explains it to them.

If they can't "report" accurately maybe they need to STFU. Sometimes reporting accurately means knowing when NOT to say something, even if true. Check out Walter Cronkite's stab in the back after TET - I'd hate to think Canada's mission to Afghanistan might be compromised because some big mouthed "journalists" are looking to sell stories.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Colin P on July 11, 2006, 11:32:56
Tony
I have met a lot of reporters, most are nice, but rarely understand what they are reporting, they also have to follow the requests of their editors and lose control of a story when submitted. I Have seen a few furious at their own people for the hack job that makes it into paper/news. Editors need to sell papers and will make changes to stories in order to sell, that is the nature of the beast. When reading stories that I was involved, I estimated that the Province generally got 40% of their facts wrong, made wonder about everything else written. Many of the news media here have an agenda also and if you are pro-military or into firearms you are fair game for them.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: tomahawk6 on July 11, 2006, 11:35:58
Looks like the family has decided to bar the media from the repatriation ceremonies.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060710/canada_soldier_boneca_060711/20060711?hub=TopStories
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: tonykeene on July 11, 2006, 11:42:26
I know, and I understand, that those big headlines look awful.  But the headlines are larger simply because this story is different.  For 16 deaths now, family and friends have said almost the same thing.  He/she loved the military, believed in the mission, etc.  The coverage also has been uniformly sympathetic and positive.  We did not accuse the media of bias, or of having an agenda, when vthose stories were published.

Now, suddenly, the soldier's girlfriend's father has released his personal e-mails.  Why?  He is the one being quoted.  The Ottawa Citizen this morning prints the e-mails, and quotes the girl's father.  The reporters are reporting, they are not making it up.  And the headlines are bigger because, precisely because, this is different.  It goes against the flow.

The Globe and Mail, the Toronto Star, the SUN chain and others have been filled with pages and pages of massively positive coverage from their embedded reporters in Afghanistan.  TV networks have done the same.  For the first time since Korea, the CF are getting more positive, in-depth coverage than they have in decades.  We have created a whole new generation of war correspondents who understand the Forces, use the correct terminology and who support, by and large, our soldiers and their missions.  Coverage of the new CDS has been close to hagiographic.  (Big word of the day!)

The reporters do not have an agenda, other than to report important news.  When someone hands over e-mails or letters indicating a soldier was disillusioned or whatever, they are gonna crank it out, big time.  That's what they are there for.  Had his family handed over letters and e-mails showing him as dedicated to the mission, loving being a soldier (as was done with other casualties) they would have reported that.  And they did.  16 times.

We didn't accuse them of being biased then, we shouldn't do it now.




Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Ex-fusilier on July 11, 2006, 11:46:08
Throwing my 2 cents in here....FYI, I'm leaving for Afghanistan two weeks from today.

First of all, RIP to the good Cpl.  He will not be forgotten.

I also think that some of the media coverage is disgraceful.  I'm sure that there are a percentage of people over there that are'nt happy to be there.  After watching all the coverage on CTV, I think the MND summed it up best, it's the military.  Once you volunteer to go over, you don't have a choice as to what ops you partake in.  I just feel a little disappointed in the media coverage and all the comments coming from his girlfriend's father, etc, etc.  I can understand that they're hurting now, however, this kind of stuff belittles the sacrifice that this mbr made, IMHO.  I think it's going to paint a picture that most of us feel that way to the Canadian public, and from what I've seen with the troops about to depart with me, most of us are chomping at the bit to get over there.  I believe in the mission, if I did'nt, I would'nt have volunteered to go over.  As we well know, there are more than enough mechanisms in place within the DAG process where a mbr can easily get out of a deployment if they want to.  It just made me a little hot under the collar, probably because I'm this close to leaving and you see this type of coverage and know that it's going to affect how we're portrayed to the Canadian public.  Even if we, as soldiers, feel that this mission is wrong, that decision has been made far above our collective heads.  All that's left to do is soldier on and complete the task at hand.  As my grandfather likes to say "When you're in the Army, you're like a limp d**k, you go wherever you're pushed".  Pardon the language, but he is a WW2 vet :D

Just my two cents..
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Hot Lips on July 11, 2006, 11:51:33
Maybe we are bending over backwards a little too far to accomodate the media. I think the media and our relations with them is very important but honestly, kicking troops out of their own lav so a reporter can tag along?

Not cool.  
I can only hope Canadians don't condone putting our troops in more danger than required in order to get a few snapshots and a story from an "embeded" reporter.
Ditto

HL
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: tomahawk6 on July 11, 2006, 11:55:04
The media in Canada like the US are left of center and very much the attack dogs of the Liberal party in Canada and the Democrat party in the US. Fairness in reporting is lacking whenever they can slag the Tories or the Republicans. In this case the media is giving the gf's father as much coverage as possible.Where is the self restraint ? The Editor in Chief could post a notice on the front page that they would honor the memory of CPL Boneca by not printing anything that didnt come from the Boneca family.
So instead of seeing a young soldier killed in the service of his country people will see the soldier remembered as something less than what he deserves. Very sad. The media is beyond defense on this and the girl friend's father is an idiot. Releasing email's which are private communication is very hurtful to the Boneca family, their friends and the Regiment he served. The public needs to write in to their papers and demand an end to this so that CPL Boneca can go to his final rest with the honor he deserves.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Teddy Ruxpin on July 11, 2006, 11:57:07
I violently disagree with "tonykeene".  The media hasn't reported "important news", they've been searching for controversy and leaping upon it like a pack of ravenous dogs when it appears.

There's no - as in zero - attempt to investigate the background to a story.  Instead we get sensationalism, spurred on by a rather dubious source - the girlfriend's father.  Where is the attempt to determine what the selection and training process for Reserve personnel is?  Where is the explanation as to how Reservists are employed in theatre?  Where is the story outlining how soldiers are fed in the field and how they're supplied?  Where are the caveats that the immediate family has not been interviewed?  Surely that is "important news".  How is the publishing of private e-mails - NOT provided by the family - newsworthy?

Moreover, where are our PAFF people to sort questions like this out?

I don't believe that the media has a political agenda.  Instead, they're after sensationalism and controversy in order to pursue commercial and careerist objectives.  They have behaved abysmally towards fallen soldiers' families in the past (recently here in Edmonton) and invariably get both detail and context completely wrong.  More often than not, the media fails to conduct even the most basic of research before publishing a story - to the point where we still see ranks and units misidentified and operations misconstrued.  This is worse than poor reporting, it is selective attention to detail designed to generate controversy.  The media presence in Kandahar isn't called the "death watch" for nothing...

They ARE biased - towards their own agendas - and have demonstrated that bias time and time again.

Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Jarnhamar on July 11, 2006, 12:01:04
I seem to recall talk about reporters, upon hearing of a slain Edmonton soldiers death, canvasing the street he lived on in the early lightless hours of the morning.  Apparently they found out what street he was on but not his address so they took to going door to door.

Quote
the soldier's girlfriend's father has released his personal e-mails.

Personally I think this is horrible.  I understand someones point of view of 'wanting the truth to be known' however I think he is failing to take into consideration what we've already established here.  Soldiers talk crap to relieve stress.

Whether these emails are an accurate or truthful representation of this soldiers feelings I can't help but feel did anyone ask him if his private emails could be read?

It all boils down to whether this fighting someone else's war stuff is something this soldier truly believed and WANTED the public to now or if it was taken out of context.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: military granny on July 11, 2006, 12:02:34
Ghost and HL I totally agree with that statement. My son is in the sandbox right now and he dislikes and does not trust the media that is there at all. They have approached him on many occasions to try and get statements from him, from days after his accident till just the other day. And being the military person he is and knowing to respect others he was kind in his reply and just said the only statement I will give you is on how I don't believe that I should have to protect you reporters while I'm outside the wire, if you want more then that go elsewhere.

Why should the men and women have to look after these reporters while they are there? Do they have nothing else to think about besides the well being of them? All of us know they have enough on their minds with watching out for themselves and their brothers at arms.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Teddy Ruxpin on July 11, 2006, 12:03:30
Quote
I seem to recall talk about reporters, upon hearing of a slain Edmonton soldiers death, canvasing the street he lived on in the early lightless hours of the morning.  Apparently they found out what street he was on but not his address so they took to going door to door.

It wasn't just talk - it happened.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Brad Sallows on July 11, 2006, 12:14:04
As others have noted, an important point to mull over is this: a soldier can be expected to be in different emotional and mental states during various phases of the cycle - pre-deployment, initial arrival in theatre, mid-tour, "short", and post-deployment.  None of these taken in isolation is a correct and complete reflection of the individual except as he might have been at that particular time and in those particular circumstances.  We don't need studies to tell us this; it's common sense and something we have been able to observe for generations and read about in the memoirs of those who have served in battle.

What has gone wrong here is that this one snapshot stands alone as the public testament to a soldier who can no longer represent himself.  Those who have contributed to and created this narrow portrait now have a duty to correct it by learning more, and telling us more, about the life and beliefs and ambitions of Cpl Anthony Boneca.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: George Wallace on July 11, 2006, 12:18:31
This is turning into THE SECOND NATIONAL DISGRACE IN AS MANY WEEKS.  That should be headline news.  It is a disgrace the way that the 'girlfriend' and her father are making a Political Statement of this and the way that the Press are running with it.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Chris Pook on July 11, 2006, 12:28:58
I support Tony in his assertion that the media has given positive coverage of the military and that we didn't accuse them of bias then.  

I suppose that the media must have determined by their usual means that "when someone says (was saying) something that is different, or that goes (went) against the flow, it makes (made ) news automatically."  By that definition apparently the media at large and corporately determined that support for the Forces was newsworthy, unusual, unexpected, surprising. It must have stood out.

Why did the media (again corporately) find support for the Forces surprising?

I also accept the assertion that no editor has told her/his reporters to go out and attack the military, that the only requirement is to find difference - presumably to make their paper stand out and sell more copies.  I also accept the assertion that "The media, as institutions, have a natural liberal tendency in democracies."  which would seem to put them in some dissonance with the authoritarian, hierarchical culture of the military.  They must find much about the military remarkable and noteworthy.  

Is it too far to stretch to ask whether this very lack of understanding results in more questioning which in turn just strike the persons being interviewed as ill-informed, naive or just plain ignorant? After all "They don't have the benefit of 20 years experience in the police, fire department or the military.  They are not trained and experienced lawyers or engineers or anything else.  They ask questions, and they get answers."  

One of the peculiarities of talking to lawyers, engineers, soldiers and, dare I say, media types, is that they all share a common jargon, short hand that comes from shared experience, common education and common understanding from which all internal discussions flow.  The outsider, not being privy to the jargon or the common understanding, inevitably has a choice of taking time to at least learn the jargon of the trade in question or risk being perceived less than favourably.  It seems that "time" is a commodity not available to reporters.  That must contribute to the observation that "They of course sometimes get it wrong...."

I accept that "Most reporters in Canada are young people trying to do a good job." and like most young people in that situation that means impressing their boss in order to keep their pay-check or potentially advance up the greasy pole.  Presumably the fault in producing poorly researched, inaccurate, hastily judged pieces lies with the more experienced editors trying to get "newsworthy" stories on the page.  Or perhaps it lies with the publishers that demand the editor create a presentation that is marketable.  Or perhaps it lies with the market and its desire for news. One might have thought though there was a difference between facts as news and rumour as news.

In any event, regardless of who is victim here: publisher, editor, reporter - possibly even the person being interviewed, I have to feel sorry for the press (at large and corporately).  It must be tremendously trying to go to work each day wanting to do a good job, to get a pay raise and promotion and know that you will never be given the opportunity to get the story right.

I suppose  of course the press could hire more soldiers, engineers, lawyers, etc to write about their fields - but perhaps they wouldn't ask so many questions and would be blind to the working assumptions of their colleagues.  

Fortunately the press is apparently free of such internal challenges.
 


Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: tonykeene on July 11, 2006, 12:33:24
Ghost and HL I totally agree with that statement. My son is in the sandbox right now and he dislikes and does not trust the media that is there at all. They have approached him on many occasions to try and get statements from him, from days after his accident till just the other day. And being the military person he is and knowing to respect others he was kind in his reply and just said the only statement I will give you is on how I don't believe that I should have to protect you reporters while I'm outside the wire, if you want more then that go elsewhere.

Why should the men and women have to look after these reporters while they are there? Do they have nothing else to think about besides the well being of them? All of us know they have enough on their minds with watching out for themselves and their brothers at arms.

Well, the time and trouble it takes to look after reporters in theatre has paid off in major dividends, in huge amounts of positive, factually-accurate coverage from one end of Canada to the other, and around the world.
Reporters bond naturally with soldiers, once they get over the initial wariness.  The great war correnspodents of history have always obtained the common touch by essentially bonding with the soldiers.  They become part of the section or troop after a very short time.  Read some of Christie Blatchford's, or Matthew Fisher's, reporting.

If we told them to go away, they would simply be out there, with a locally hired translater etc, and they would be trying to get their stories from other sources.  Then we'd complain that "they don't tell our side."  They have been telling our side for years now, and we only accuse them of bias when they report something we don't like...in fact the practice of embedding reporters with the troops gives them a bias, a bias in favour of the guys and gals in whose hands their lives rest, day after day.

President Lyndon Baines Johnson once said, when asked why he did not fire a troublesome press secretary: "I'd rather have him inside the tent, pissing out, than outside the tent, pissing in."

By the way, journalists in theatre are a good source of information.  They give as good as they get, and often provide info that helps solve problems and even saves lives.  On many of our past missions, the journalists were in theatre long before our troops arrived, and they knew who was who in the zoo, where the checkpoints and the mined areas were etc.  After working in theatre together, soldiers and reporters often return with a new, if grudging, respect for one another.

I support Tony in his assertion that the media has given positive coverage of the military and that we didn't accuse them of bias then.  

I suppose that the media must have determined by their usual means that "when someone says (was saying) something that is different, or that goes (went) against the flow, it makes (made ) news automatically."  By that definition apparently the media at large and corporately determined that support for the Forces was newsworthy, unusual, unexpected, surprising. It must have stood out.

Why did the media (again corporately) find support for the Forces surprising?

I also accept the assertion that no editor has told her/his reporters to go out and attack the military, that the only requirement is to find difference - presumably to make their paper stand out and sell more copies.  i also accept the assertion that "The media, as institutions, have a natural liberal tendency in democracies."  which would seem to put them in some dissonance with the authoritarian, hierarchical culture of the military.  They must find much about the military remarkable and noteworthy.  

Is it too far to stretch to ask whether this very lack of understanding results in more questioning which in turn just strike the persons being interviewed as ill-informed, naive or just plain ignorant? After all "They don't have the benefit of 20 years experience in the police, fire department or the military.  They are not trained and experienced lawyers or engineers or anything else.  They ask questions, and they get answers."  

One of the peculiarities of talking to lawyers, engineers, soldiers and, dare I say, media types, is that they all share a common jargon, short hand that comes from shared experience, common education and common understanding from which all internal discussions flow.  The outsider, not being privy to the jargon or the common understanding, inevitably has a choice of taking time to at least learn the jargon of the trade in question or risk being perceived less than favourably.  It seems that "time" is a commodity not available to reporters.  That must contribute to the observation that "They of course sometimes get it wrong...."

I accept that "Most reporters in Canada are young people trying to do a good job." and like most young people in that situation that means impressing their boss in order to keep their pay-check or potentially advance up the greasy pole.  Presumably the fault in producing poorly researched, inaccurate, hastily judged pieces lies with the more experienced editors trying to get "newsworthy" stories on the page.  Or perhaps it lies with the publishers that demand the editor create a presentation that is marketable.  Or perhaps it lies with the market and its desire for news. One might have thought though there was a difference between facts as news and rumour as news.

In any event, regardless of who is victim here: publisher, editor, reporter - possibly even the person being interviewed, I have to feel sorry for the press (at large and corporately).  It must be tremendously trying to go to work each day wanting to do a good job, to get a pay raise and promotion and know that you will never be given the opportunity to get the story right.

I suppose  of course the press could hire more soldiers, engineers, lawyers, etc to write about their fields - but perhaps they wouldn't ask so many questions and would be blind to the working assumptions of their colleagues.  

Fortunately the press is apparently free of such internal challenges.
 



Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: milnews.ca on July 11, 2006, 12:35:40
Has it, indeed, been confirmed that the partner released the e-mails?  I've looked over a ton of stuff this morning, and I can't see that sentence.

Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: GAP on July 11, 2006, 12:38:46
Canadian soldier remembered as an 'angel of a person'
Canadian Press -   Globe & Mail  11 July 2006
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060709.wslainsoldier0709/BNStory/Front/Politics/?cid=al_gam_nletter_thehill (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060709.wslainsoldier0709/BNStory/Front/Politics/?cid=al_gam_nletter_thehill)

Toronto — A Canadian killed in Afghanistan is remembered by family and friends as a outgoing, intelligent soldier who loved his girlfriend and was devoted to his work in the military.

Cpl. Anthony Boneca, 21, a reservist from the Lake Superior Scottish Regiment in Thunder Bay, Ont., died of injuries received in a firefight west of Kandahar City on Saturday, three weeks before he was to return to Canada.

Quote from article:
Mr. Boneca had been able to enjoy a brief break from his harsh duties in Afghanistan — he and his girlfriend recently travelled to Italy and Greece on a two-week leave, Ryan said.

He sent an e-mail to friends last week, saying the pair had the time of their lives on the trip.

“Wish I didn't have to go back to work. It's so hot here now you can barely handle it,” he wrote.

“I know you're all watching the news and know what's going on here, but don't worry, I'll be OK.”

More on link...but not much....Note: if you go to the link...read the comments...they sure closed them quickly.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Teddy Ruxpin on July 11, 2006, 12:46:40
If you're having a bad day, don't read the comments attached to this latest story...
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: camochick on July 11, 2006, 12:50:04
 I think there is a shared responsibility between the press and this young woman and her family. The media didnt have to run the story but the girlfriend didnt have to run to them to tell it. I think it's sad that they are dragging this young man's memory through the mud. I know things are said overseas out of frustration that are not necesarily what a person really thinks. My husband has vented to me on numerous occasions, but that doesnt mean he doesnt believe in what he is doing. He just needed someone who really cared to listen to him.
  I think it's ridiculous that she is claiming they didnt know how rough this tour could be. They didnt hide it from us. They told us straight out that there would be casualties, and anyone with half a brain could turn on the news and see the situation wasnt the best over there. My husband has been to Kabul and he has said that Khandahar is a totally different story, but he is in the infantry, this is his job. He adapts to it and does what is needed of him. And in the end he is proud of his contribution, as we all are.
  The media needs to showing all sides of this story and not just the ranting of a few people who are consumed in grief and loss. These people do not represent the feelings of most families in this situation and it's sad that this is what people are going to see. Shame on all parties involved.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Gunnar on July 11, 2006, 12:53:55
Especially since comments are now closed....
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: armybuck041 on July 11, 2006, 12:55:35
Whats done is done now and its very unfortunate that it ended up this way in the media.

Although Cpl Boneca exibited all of the quasi normal behavior of a soldier who was in the final stages of his deployment, I seriously doubt that his family and those who cared about him understood that his reaching out and negativity of what he was involved in during the final stages of deployment are normal for allot of soldiers. The most important thing is that he was there to stack the door and sweep the building, regardless of his personal views on the deployment.

I don't think anyone has come up with a perfect solution for getting through those last couple of weeks of deployment, but most of us, myself included, have said allot of not so well intentioned things due to the stress of being so close to "quitting time". We have all seen the guys who spoke of putting in remusters and releases etc only to be revitilized after some time off after the deployment. Some need more time that others, but most come back ready to do the job. The CF must have spent a ton of money studying this and killing us with pre, during, and post deployment surveys.    

The media should definately bare some shame for tarnishing what I believe was Cpl Boneca's finest hour, but what they have reported, spun or not, was his words relayed through his family members who he kept in touch with by phone and e-mail. Unfortunately, if the last words to his family regarding the deployment were not positive ones, these are most likely what his grieving family will be clinging to.

The biggest lesson we as soldiers need to take away from this is how we project ourselves and our experiences to the members of our families waiting on the homefront.

As this theatre continues to develop and we are asked to work even further outside of our comfort zones, we need to really think about what we pass along to our family members, and what is best sorted out through discussion amongst peers in theatre. A few well placed words can be the difference between pride and despair to those who don't see the same light we do.

Out to me.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: probum non poenitet on July 11, 2006, 13:04:15
In the end, even if (and I stress IF) he hated and feared where he was and what he was doing, he had the courage to keep at it.
Talk to veterans of any of Canada's previous wars - most of them despise combat and what it does to people.
When the dust settles from all this, I think it will be summed up by what Thucydides said over 2,000 years ago:

The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding, go out to meet it.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Cloud Cover on July 11, 2006, 13:07:05
The biggest lesson we as soldiers need to take away from this is how we project ourselves and our experiences to the members of our families waiting on the homefront.  
As this theatre continues to develop and we are asked to work even further outside of our comfort zones, we need to really think about what we pass along to our family members, and what is best sorted out through discussion amongst peers in theatre. A few well placed words can be the difference between pride and despair to those who don't see the same light we do.

Out to me.

+100
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: silentbutdeadly on July 11, 2006, 13:18:03
So armybuck your saying we shouldn't talk to our families about whats troubling us overseas? clarify?
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: COBRA-6 on July 11, 2006, 13:31:30
I think he means that a remark your buddies would understand as normal army bitching, could be misinterpreted by family/friends not in the military as something different / more serious than it is, and you should keep this in mind when talking to them.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: silentbutdeadly on July 11, 2006, 13:37:49
Shh*t i can't even talk normal army stuff with my family let alone bitchin! :P
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Bill Smy on July 11, 2006, 13:38:50
There are some very good comments here. But, I'm afraid, the audience is pretty much "in house."

I would suggest that those of you who have been there, done that, contact the media. Particularly Reservists who can comment on their experiences and training. Certainly, it would provide a balanced perspective.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: armybuck041 on July 11, 2006, 13:42:40
I think he means that a remark your buddies would understand as normal army bitching, could be misinterpreted by family/friends not in the military as something different / more serious than it is, and you should keep this in mind when talking to them.

Exactly....

Everyone here has their own ways of dealing with things, but some of the things that trouble us over there are way above the comprehension of those we talk to here at home.

Here is another angle. My wife who lives here in the military community of Petawawa has a much different take on things than my family who is sitting in Kelowna BC, knowing only what they see on TV and any little tidbits I tell them over the phone. I sorta have to adjust the content to who i'm talking to, even though they are all my loved ones. Just MO.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Booked_Spice on July 11, 2006, 13:43:26
Reading this post makes me wonder if the girlfriend or his family read information about the cycle of deployments. I think that if they read any information this would not have occurred like it has now. I also seem to think they did not attend any pre deployment sessions. I received important information from all of these sessions.

In my case, my husband has vented on me and has said lots of stuff. Yes he wants to come home very bad too. We had this discussion this morning. But as previous posts have mentioned this is because the tour is winding down and everyone feels  this way.

However I did ask my husband hypothetically if I can get you home right now would you want me too? His response was this." Honey, I love you and the kids more then anything and I am sorry that I have missed so many firsts with our son. But based on what my section has been through in the last couple of days, I couldn't ever think of leaving them. We stand together and we will fight together until the tour is done. Then we will all  come home together. I may say lots of stuff and vent to you but you keep me sain and my kids remind me why we are here doing what we are doing."

 "we need to really think about what we pass along to our family members, and what is best sorted out through discussion amongst peers in theatre. A few well placed words can be the difference between pride and despair to those who don't see the same light we do."

I disagree with this statement. I feel the families need to be educated on the cycle of deployment. I am very glad that my husband has confided in me. Some of the stuff has freaked me out however I realize that he needs to do this so he can continue on his mission with his mind focused on the task. It also helps me to understand what he is going through so I am not in the dark when he comes home and has different behavior.

I also feel that we as spouses were prepared for this tour. We were told of the mission and of the expectancies of causalities


Just my 2 cents.




Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Kal on July 11, 2006, 13:45:07
Read the comments in the link...

It never ceases to surprise me that many people will see and understand a reality that they wish and not one of fact.  Conservatives pulling the wool over Canadian eyes, when fact is the Liberals sent soldiers first.  Afghanistan having nothing to do with Canada..  Hitler didn't kill any Jews in Canada, why did we fight that 'justified' war?  
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Bruce Monkhouse on July 11, 2006, 13:47:18
Which is why as Bill said we have to start getting "the message" out also......faster than the whiners.

http://army.ca/legal/ruxted.php

Got a local newspaper?
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: armybuck041 on July 11, 2006, 13:54:56
Reading this post makes me wonder if the girlfriend or his family read information about the cycle of deployments. I think that if they read any information this would not have occurred like it has now. I also seem to think they did not attend any pre deployment sessions. I received important information from all of these sessions.

In my case, my husband has vented on me and has said lots of stuff. Yes he wants to come home very bad too. We had this discussion this morning. But as previous posts have mentioned this is because the tour is winding down and everyone feels  this way.

However I did ask my husband hypothetically if I can get you home right now would you want me too? His response was this." Honey, I love you and the kids more then anything and I am sorry that I have missed so many firsts with our son. But based on what my section has been through in the last couple of days, I couldn't ever think of leaving them. We stand together and we will fight together until the tour is done. Then we will all  come home together. I may say lots of stuff and vent to you but you keep me sain and my kids remind me why we are here doing what we are doing."

 "we need to really think about what we pass along to our family members, and what is best sorted out through discussion amongst peers in theatre. A few well placed words can be the difference between pride and despair to those who don't see the same light we do."

I disagree with this statement. I feel the families need to be educated on the cycle of deployment. I am very glad that my husband has confided in me. Some of the stuff has freaked me out however I realize that he needs to do this so he can continue on his mission with his mind focused on the task. It also helps me to understand what he is going through so I am not in the dark when he comes home and has different behavior.

I also feel that we as spouses were prepared for this tour. We were told of the mission and of the expectancies of causalities

Just my 2 cents.

Exactly. How I talk to my wife who is educated on deployment stress and other military jargon is different than my extended family who is not.

Enjoy your much deserved reunion Booked Spice.

Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Haggis on July 11, 2006, 14:28:42
However I did ask my husband hypothetically if I can get you home right now would you want me too? His response was this." Honey, I love you and the kids more then anything and I am sorry that I have missed so many firsts with our son. But based on what my section has been through in the last couple of days, I couldn't ever think of leaving them. We stand together and we will fight together until the tour is done. Then we will all  come home together. I may say lots of stuff and vent to you but you keep me sain and my kids remind me why we are here doing what we are doing."

I had the experience of being repatriated early from my last tour (death of my mother) in 2004.  I had eight days left.  It rips your guts out to involuntarily leave your soldiers before "the job" is done.

I understand 110% where your hubby is coming from.  My wife and I had the same discussion when my mom began her decline.  She or I could've contacted the padre/social worker and had me out in a heartbeat.  We agreed that I would stay with my troops until the last possible moment, which I did.  Unfortunately my mom was never one to wait around for anything so as soon as she knew I was on my way home, she left us.

As much as I loved my mother, it hurt like hell to leave my soldiers so close to the end.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: GAP on July 11, 2006, 14:37:06
More of CHRISTIE BLATCHFORD articles and online commentary.

Three days of fierce, bloody war  
CHRISTIE BLATCHFORD From Tuesday's Globe and Mail 11 July 2006
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060711.wxafghan11/BNStory/Afghanistan/home (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060711.wxafghan11/BNStory/Afghanistan/home)

I'd been following Cpl. Mooney around like a bad smell. But in the battle that killed Cpl. Boneca, I lost sight of him.

KANDAHAR, AFGHANISTAN — Corporal Keith Mooney sat hunched in his wheelchair on the tarmac at Kandahar Air Field yesterday, his blond head bent, his sweet face contorted as he tried not to cry.

The body of the young man he knew only a little and then only to tease -- I forget what he said it was about but it would have been in the way soldiers relentlessly rag on one another, gentle, funny and profane all at once -- was being carried up the ramp into the belly of a green-grey Hercules aircraft to head home to Canada.

Just hours after Cpl. Tony Boneca was killed Sunday morning while clearing a mud compound in Panjwei district west of Kandahar City, Cpl. Mooney himself was hit and wounded, perhaps by enemy fire, although he remains unconvinced of that, perhaps by the secondary explosion of a Taliban weapons cache that blew up when a bomb was dropped in a mud-walled maze of grape fields where for three long days ending yesterday Canadians fought in the sort of sustained and vicious battle Cpl. Mooney calls "a shitshow."
more on link

Christie Blatchford on Canada's mission in Afghanistan
Globe and Mail Update 11 July 2006
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060710.wlivekandahar0711/BNStory/specialComment/home (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060710.wlivekandahar0711/BNStory/specialComment/home)

Globe columnist Christie Blatchford was on patrol with Canadian Forces in Afghanistan over the weekend when Corporal Tony Boneca was killed in a fight with Taliban insurgents near Pasmul
more on link
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: milnews.ca on July 11, 2006, 14:42:18
Any enlightenment on this appreciated....

In response to those mentioning pre-deployment stress workshops, if a Reservist is to be deployed, I'm guessing s/he attends, but would his/her spouse/significant other be flown in to attend as well?  Would someone in the Reservist's hometown get together with the spouse/significant other/family to do some sort of briefing?  Spent time in the Reserves, but never deployed, so that's why I'm wondering.

Thx!
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Towards_the_gap on July 11, 2006, 14:54:29
http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/News/National/2006/07/11/1678530-sun.html


I was livid when I read this headline, and duly wrote a letter to the editor. i think the media circus surrounding this soldier (RIP) is nothing more than sensationalist, tabloid journalism.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: pbi on July 11, 2006, 15:26:10
, if a Reservist is to be deployed, I'm guessing s/he attends, but would his/her spouse/significant other be flown in to attend as well?  Would someone in the Reservist's hometown get together with the spouse/significant other/family to do some sort of briefing?  Spent time in the Reserves, but never deployed, so that's why I'm wondering.

Thx!

I can´t vouch for the current mission, but I know what we did previously to support our Reserve families. When I was with 38 CBG (2002-2005) we fielded a D&S platoon for the ATHENA support base, raised from around the Bde. In order to  make sure that families knew what was involved, I took a team consisting of me (COS), an officer from the G1 (Personnel) branch, and a PAff NCO. Local chaplains and Family Support Centre reps were involved where they were available.  We toured all Brigade locations that were home to deploying soldiers. The meetings were held in the unit armoury in the evenings, and the deploying soldiers were asked to invite their families, friends, employers, etc. We explained the nature of the mission, including possible risks, the selection and training process, leave and redeployment, and post redeployment follow-up. We explained the various different ways that families could get information about their soldiers, how to contact them in an emergency, and how to contact the military 24/7. We provided copies of the Brigade newsletter )including arranging to mail copies to homes, and explained how to access the Bde website deployment info page. We offered advice on dealing with the media, and the number of the local Bde or unit PAO, but we stressed that it was totally up to the families if they wanted to speak to the media or not: neither we nor the media could force them either way. We asked only that they respected OPSEC to a reasonable extent. During the time that the soldiers were deployed, we kept in touch with families. Once the troops redeployed, we followed up in each case to see that they got the required post-deployment screenings.

The whole thing was fairly expensive, and took a lot of time, but considering that it was for our soldiers and their families it was worth it.

I am sure that if we, as a simple Res Bde, could do those basic things two years ago, they can and would be done today. Because of this, I have a very, very hard time accepting the idea that neither Cpl Boneca nor his immediate family understood what was going on.

Cheers

Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: milnews.ca on July 11, 2006, 15:45:51
PBI - thanks for the detailed explanation. Sounds like all the bases were covered.  I wasn't thinking that a lack of pre-brief would leave them not understanding the nature of the mission, though. 

I work full-time dealing with media, and I have a hard time getting my message across, so I've gotta think it must be pretty near impossible to think about "messaging" and "public perception" when you've had the rug pulled out from under you when a loved one is taken from you.

I guess this is even more reason to discuss with your loved ones what you want (and DON'T want) said if the bell tolls.  You don't have to be dead, either - the media'll come calling if you get injured, too.

I know I'd hate to be judged by something I said/wrote on a really sh**ty day....
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: milnews.ca on July 11, 2006, 16:05:54
The latest re:  media/repat...

http://www.news.gc.ca/cfmx/view/en/index.jsp?articleid=226879

Repatriation of the Remains of Corporal Anthony Boneca
 

MA 06-08 - July 11, 2006

OTTAWA -The remains of Corporal Anthony Boneca, killed in Afghanistan on July 9, are scheduled to arrive at Canadian Forces Base Trenton in Ontario on July 12 at 7:00 pm. Cpl Boneca was killed during a firefight with insurgents approximately 25 kilometres west of Kandahar, Afghanistan.

The Governor General and Commander-in-Chief of Canada, Her Excellency the Right Honourable Michaëlle Jean, the Minister of National Defence, The Honourable Gordon O’Connor, Chief of the Defence Staff, Gen. Rick Hillier and Maj.-Gen. Marc Lessard, Assistant Chief of Land Staff will be present to pay their respects.

At the request of the next of kin, a photo opportunity will be provided to the media on the Trenton tarmac. No interviews will be granted by the family.

Short and sweet....
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: milnews.ca on July 11, 2006, 16:09:05
Sorry to crank you up, gang, but here's what happens when the message runs amok...  >:(

http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php/20060711084305961

  War Resister Killed In Afghanistan . . .
Contributed by: eugene
. . . Is what the headline should read.

Instead of the apologistics of the Minister of Defense.

This is Canada, after all, and yes--we can decide which missions we want to go on. Thank you very much. Especially when our troops were lied to. Those who signed up under the impression our National Policy was Peacekeeping, now are working under the Harpocrites private agenda of War Making. They were mislead.....
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: GAP on July 11, 2006, 16:14:32
Well, that's one less for my "Favorites" shortcuts...
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Thucydides on July 11, 2006, 16:26:28
My stock in ALCOA and ALCAN is shooting through the roof. I predict a shortage of Jiffy Pop in the near future as well. Plan accordingly  ::)
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Remius on July 11, 2006, 16:36:46
Sorry to crank you up, gang, but here's what happens when the message runs amok...  >:(

http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php/20060711084305961

  War Resister Killed In Afghanistan . . .
Contributed by: eugene
. . . Is what the headline should read.

Instead of the apologistics of the Minister of Defense.

This is Canada, after all, and yes--we can decide which missions we want to go on. Thank you very much. Especially when our troops were lied to. Those who signed up under the impression our National Policy was Peacekeeping, now are working under the Harpocrites private agenda of War Making. They were mislead.....


Ugh.  Why? Why did I look? I didn't want to look at it but I had to.  My suggestion is to hijack that site.  My God.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: milnews.ca on July 11, 2006, 16:38:37
Crantor - Like a bad accident - you KNOW you didn't want to, but you HAD to.... ;)

a_majoor -  :rofl: - nice break from the vitriol!
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: annonymous1 on July 11, 2006, 16:47:31
 :cdn:
nice work on the video, milnews. as someone who knew the good corporal, i was moved to tears. thank you.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: MarkOttawa on July 11, 2006, 16:56:50
Cpl. Boneca's father has a different view from the negative one the media has been splashing around. How much prominence will his statements get?

Quote
Slain soldier's father says son 'loved the army'
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060710/canada_soldier_boneca_060711/20060711?hub=TopStories

Quote
The father of the Canadian soldier slain in a firefight in Afghanistan has denied media reports that his son felt ill-equipped and "hated" his military mission.

Antonio Boneca, father of Corporal Anthony Boneca, said his son "knew what he was getting into" and "loved being in the Army."

"In all my conversations with my son, there was never any mention of him not being well enough or fit enough to carry out his military duties," Boneca said in a statement released Tuesday...

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Teddy Ruxpin on July 11, 2006, 17:01:57
I find it interesting that, despite what the soldier's father has to say, CTV still sees fit to give more prominence to the accusations raised by the "girlfriend's dad" and to quote him extensively.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Chris Pook on July 11, 2006, 17:04:10
I find it interesting that, despite what the soldier's father has to say, CTV still sees fit to give more prominence to the accusations raised by the "girlfriend's dad" and to quote him extensively.

Moi aussi.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Colin P on July 11, 2006, 17:05:06
Doesn't have the same "buzz" as the Girlfriends dad, who is clearly more talkative.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Milhouser911 on July 11, 2006, 17:29:03
Re:  This link

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060710.wlivekandahar0711/BNStory/specialComment/home[/url


Is there any way we can contact Christie Blatchford and make her an honorary member of army.ca?  I never get tired of her articles, question periods, and no-duff answers.

-Cpl McNeill
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: milnews.ca on July 11, 2006, 17:34:22
Notice the story says, "in a statement".  I heard the father speaking on the first CBC Radio story I heard on this (Sunday, noon), and based on a 12 second clip they used, I don't think English is his first language (he was apparently born in Portugal). Couldn't tell if he was uncomfortable speaking, if the reporter chose not to use his stuff, if he was too distraught to speak much, or if he deferred to other relatives.  

Just heard on CBC Radio (1630EDT news) that Mr. Boneca issued the statement through the CF.  The statement apparently contradicts everything the others have been saying to this point.

Unless he goes on camera (sad to say), the denial will likely be buried under the "face time" clips....
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Teddy Ruxpin on July 11, 2006, 17:35:38
Here's a link to Cpl Boneca's father's entire statement, for those who wish to read it without interpretation by journalists:

http://www.army.dnd.ca/LFWA_HQ/Documents/2006/MA/MA-Boneca_Statement_Jul06.pdf (http://www.army.dnd.ca/LFWA_HQ/Documents/2006/MA/MA-Boneca_Statement_Jul06.pdf)
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: GAP on July 11, 2006, 17:37:18
Re:  This link

Is there any way we can contact Christie Blatchford and make her an honorary member of army.ca?  I never get tired of her articles, question periods, and no-duff answers.

-Cpl McNeill

If you go to that link, on the bottom is contact information that she will get when she gets a chance to read her emails...I have sent her a complimentary note one other time, and she answered back within a few days.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Cloud Cover on July 11, 2006, 17:55:02
Here's a link to Cpl Boneca's father's entire statement, for those who wish to read it without interpretation by journalists:

http://www.army.dnd.ca/LFWA_HQ/Documents/2006/MA/MA-Boneca_Statement_Jul06.pdf (http://www.army.dnd.ca/LFWA_HQ/Documents/2006/MA/MA-Boneca_Statement_Jul06.pdf)

Thanks TR. Lets get the text of this up on the main page here.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: milnews.ca on July 11, 2006, 17:58:15
Here's what was sent out.....

“Father of Corporal Boneca Issues Statement.”    Land Forces Western Area
news release, 11 Jul 06, viewed at http://tinyurl.com/n3h95 .

THUNDER BAY, Ont. – Mr. Antonio Boneca, father of Corporal Anthony Boneca, who was killed
in battle on July 9, 2006, while serving in Afghanistan wishes to issue the following statement:
Our prid e was in our son before and after he became a professional soldier. He was a giving person.
He was a leader. He was the kind of person who was always joking and liked to make others around
him happy. Anthony was the first to volunteer in any situation.

My son volunteered to go to Afghanistan. Anthony knew what he was getting into. He loved being in
the Army and my wife, Shirley and I, supported our son whole-heartedly. In all my conversations with
my son, there was never any mention of him not being well enough or fit enough to carry out his military
duties.

Recent media reports state that my son may not have been prepared. His conversations with my family
and me indicated he was well aware of the dangers around him and was committed to the test he had
taken on. Anthony knew he was part of a group that stuck together to do what they were sent to do.

He said it was difficult to cope with the weather, the sand, and the situation the young children endured.
He was proud to make a difference in their lives and said he wished these children could live like we do
in Canada. Certainly, Anthony wanted to come home, but I ask what soldier wouldn’t in that situation?
There is no question about the extent of his military training. I know he was well prepared for what he
was sent to do.

Please respect my family’s request for privacy during our time of grief.

-30-

....and Here's What the Media Wrote

Hammond, Michael. “Father of fallen soldier denies son was unhappy in Afghanistan.”    Canadian Press, 11 Jul 06, viewed at http://tinyurl.com/rb8zp .

The father of the soldier killed in Afghanistan earlier this week denies his son was ill-prepared for his dangerous tour of duty, contradicting claims from some of the soldier's friends.

Cpl. Anthony Boneca's father Antonio said his son "loved being in the army" and was aware of the situation he was facing.

"In all my conversations with my son, there was never any mention of him not being well enough or fit enough to carry out his military duties," Boneca's father said.

"He said it was difficult to cope with the weather, the sand, and the situation the young children endured (but) he was proud to make a difference in their lives and said he wished these children could live like we do in Canada."

Boneca's father disputed reports that suggested his son felt he was poorly prepared for his second stint in Afghanistan.

Boneca, 21, was killed earlier this week in a fierce battle with the Taliban near Kandahar City.

Boneca's girlfriend Megan DeCorte and his best friend Dylan Bulloch have said that he was deeply unhappy in Afghanistan and did not feel prepared.

With some minor exceptions, most of the media has been barred from covering Boneca's memorial service when his body returns to Canada Wednesday.

Following a directive from the Conservative government, the Canadian Forces will prevent the media from covering the memorial service even though some senior officers have expressed concerns with the policy. The decision over media coverage is now left to the family of the deceased.

The Boneca family asked that the service be kept "as private as possible," said Lieut. Morgan Bailey.

Some allowances will be made for photographs and visual images to be taken when Boneca's body is brought to CFB Trenton. That flight is expected to arrive at 7 p.m. EDT.

(...)

Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: GAP on July 11, 2006, 18:03:19
They never give up do they....report the correct facts, then slide right on into the controversy....

I wonder if they ever thought that a simple "Mea Cupa" would do, by the way, here are the "real facts"...  :(
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Springroll on July 11, 2006, 18:06:46
I wish they would just let his family grieve and drop this already.

They proving more and more that they have no respect for those left behind and just want to make more unnecessary drama by publishing what they feel are the facts.... ::).
Title: Anthony Boneca's Father sets things straight.
Post by: Fractux on July 11, 2006, 18:14:21
From http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/07/11/father-boneca.html


Quote
Slain soldier was 'well-prepared,' father says

The father of a 21-year-old reservist killed in Afghanistan is rejecting reports that his son was misled and ill-prepared for his mission.

In a written statement issued by the defence department, Antonio Boneca said his son Anthony "knew what he was getting into" when he volunteered to go to Afghanistan.

"He loved being in the Army and my wife, Shirley and I, supported our son whole-heartedly," wrote Antonio Boneca, who is from Thunder Bay, Ont.

"In all my conversations with my son, there was never any mention of him not being well enough or fit enough to carry out his military duties."

"Recent media reports state that my son may not have been prepared. His conversations with my family and me indicated he was well aware of the dangers around him and was committed to the test he had taken on. "

Anthony Boneca was killed Sunday morning as international and Afghan soldiers moved into a region west of Kandahar City.

An uncle of Anthony said his nephew was disillusioned with the army. Also, the father of Boneca's girlfriend said Boneca felt misled by the military and wasn't properly trained for his missions. He said he wanted out so badly that he even considered pretending to be suicidal to get discharged.

Antonio Boneca said his son acknowledged it was difficult to cope with the "weather, the sand, and the situation the young children endured."

But he wrote that his son was "proud to make a difference in their lives and said he wished these children could live like we do in Canada."

"Certainly, Anthony wanted to come home, but I ask what soldier wouldn't in that situation? There is no question about the extent of his military training. I know he was well prepared for what he was sent to do."

Boneca's body is expected to be returned to Canada on Thursday around 7 p.m. Media will have some access to the repatriation ceremony. The Conservatives had initially banned media coverage of repatriation ceremonies but later reversed their decision, saying it is now up to the family to decide.


Like many others, I was so outraged at the media's take on this morning, that I had to stop reading through the earlier thread. I can't believe that a family and friends, who is grieving for their son has now had to deal with this situation and its fallout. It takes a heck of a lot of courage to go to the media who started this frenzy and speak so eloquently, as Mr.Boneca  did.

My condolences to the family and friends for their loss.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Remius on July 11, 2006, 18:15:18
Crantor - Like a bad accident - you KNOW you didn't want to, but you HAD to.... ;)

a_majoor -  :rofl: - nice break from the vitriol!

I know I shouldn't have done it but I had to comment on that idiot's article.  I sent a response on that site that will not stay up for long I gather.  I was disgusted but now I'm angry. 

This is what I had to say:

Dear Eugene.

Thank you for turning my disgust at the media's handling of Cpl Boneca's death into pure anger. Your post has to be the most uninformed piece of dribble I've ever read. Soldiers know exactly what they get themselves into. Cpl Boneca was an infantry soldier. Do you know what the role of the infantry is? "To close with and destroy the enemy" Not peacekeeping, not shoveling snow, not daisy picking.

Soldiers are not mislead about this. They are taught this from day one. Don't believe me? Go to the local recruiting centre and ask a few questions. In fact the infantry RIA has it printed in black and white. Not to mention that troops learn what their true role is from the get go. Not some idealistic myth that exists in this country.

How dare you use the death of a noble soldier to further your petty interests! You shame everything he stood for. How dare you call him a "War resister". Do not think that for one second this man was like you or any of your bunch.

You also call for dissent within the ranks. You have sorely misjudged your audience. Your words are tantamount to treason. If you think for one second that Canadian Forces personel would rise up to oppose the very country they are serving then you are more ignorant than I thought.

Now I doubt this post will stay up for very long nor do I care. Nor do I think that any of this will sink in. Stay in your bubble and sheltered lifestyle while others do the dirty work.

You have the right to your opinion. But don't use the misconstrued and misrepresented words of a dead man who did more for his country than you ever will.

Remius out.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Kal on July 11, 2006, 19:46:12
I love it.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: E.R. Campbell on July 11, 2006, 20:11:57
I will repeat myself:

•   The role of journalists is to fill the white spaces between the adverts.  Publishers and owners prefer the fill to be sensational or, at least, mildly controversial (man bites dog).  The aim is to make money; more and more and more adverts are best, news will have to do when there are no more adverts;

•   Most journalists are not overly biased one way or another.  They are: ill-educated, poorly informed and lazy;

•   Most journalists are accustomed to being stenographers.   They usually ‘take dictation’ from various hacks, flacks and ”communications professionals” employed by corporations and political organizations.  In this day and age, especially in Ottawa, the journalists don’t even have to master basic stenographic skills: the press agents send them custom tailored ‘releases’ on every topic under the sun – add your by-line, send it to the editor, collect your pay-cheque;

•   Most press agents are well educated, smart, hard working and ambitious – that’s why they got out of journalism.  Honesty is not required (may not even be desirable) in a good press agent.  Ditto for journalists – just look at the spin they apply to the current story.  Facts (like the father’s statement) are inconvenient obstacles when sensation (the girlfriend’s father’s allegations)  is the objective;

•   There are a whole lot of press agents in Ottawa – the majority not paid by the Liberal Party of Canada – whose aim is to discredit Stephen Harper and his government and all his/its words and deeds.  The employers of said press agents want to return to he golden days of the natural governing party and its largesse.

The prevailing wisdom amongst a solid majority of Canadians is: George W. Bush is evil incarnate and anything he does must be wrong.  It follows, naturally, that Bush started the war in Afghanistan for some nefarious purpose and then told his lap dog, Stephen Harper, to trick those pure, innocent Liberals, Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin, into sending Canadian peacekeepers to fight Bush’s evil war there.  We should not be surprised that most journalists reflect the views of most Canadians.  They (journalists) are not sufficiently well educated or informed to be able to stand above the herd mentality.

So, I don’t think it is institutional journalistic bias.  Some journalists are biased – many, perhaps even most have a rather generic leftish/anti-American/anti-capitalist read Trudeauist) bias. Some are fairly far ‘right’.  Most journalists share and reflect the biases held by most Canadians.  The problem is that they have access to the ‘white spaces between the adverts’ even though they are poorly qualified to fill them.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: MarkOttawa on July 11, 2006, 21:12:25
Edward Campbell:

Mike Blanchfield and David Pugliese of the Ottawa Citizen, who write on defence issues a lot, are perfect illustrations of your points.  Examples:

"Afstan: Ottawa Citizen's bad reporting"
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2006/06/afstan-ottawa-citizens-bad-reporting.html

"Afstan update: about four months late"
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2006/03/afstan-update-about-four-months-late.html

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: milnews.ca on July 12, 2006, 00:07:07
Ya try to get the truth out there, and ya STILL can't win.... :(

http://www.940news.com/nouvelles.php?cat=23&id=71179

A discomfiting squabble has erupted among the loved ones of Cpl. Anthony Boneca on the eve of the return of the soldier's body from Afghanistan.  Boneca's father, Antonio, went to the lengths of issuing a public statement Tuesday to refute suggestions that the 21-year-old fallen reservist felt misled and disillusioned with the army before being killed in a furious firefight over the weekend.  Boneca "loved being in the army" and was aware of the situation he was facing, his father insisted.  "In all my conversations with my son, there was never any mention of him not being well enough or fit enough to carry out his military duties."  "He said it was difficult to cope with the weather, the sand, and the situation the young children endured (but) he was proud to make a difference in their lives and said he wished these children could live like we do in Canada."  (...) The elder Boneca's intervention was in direct contradiction of anguished sentiments expressed by the soldier's girlfriend, Megan DeCorte, and his best friend, Dylan Bulloch....

And the media, being herd mammals, run with it....
http://tinyurl.com/rc9lk

Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: milnews.ca on July 12, 2006, 08:15:57
Latest angle on the father's statement - CBC Radio says it was issued on military letterhead,
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/07/11/father-boneca.html

In a written statement issued by the defence department, Antonio Boneca said his son Anthony "knew what he was getting into" when he volunteered to go to Afghanistan.

The least assumptive description I've found was this:
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=e3599def-04c4-4f34-8966-955cf6872684

In a statement drafted with the help of military officials, the father of Canada's latest war casualty yesterday took aim at recent portrayals of his son as a poorly trained reservist who was bitterly unhappy in Afghanistan and questioned Canada's role in that country.

I leave it up to you to read between the lines when media say the military was involved in issuing the statement - I don't know if I can be objective in my read of the situation.

Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: George Wallace on July 12, 2006, 08:41:49
I didn't know that we had a military 'Letterhead' anymore.  I would question that line.

I see that they are picking tidbits from this site:
Quote
Contributors to the discussion forums at the pro-defence website army.ca  yesterday characterized Cpl. Boneca's negative comments as a means of dealing with the intense pressure of front-line combat. One contributor called the complaints "normal army bitching."

"Most of us, myself included, have said allot (sic) of not so well intentioned things due to the stress of being so close to 'quitting time'," wrote another poster, armybuck041.

"The biggest lesson we as soldiers need to take away from this is how we project ourselves and our experiences to the members of our families waiting on the homefront," armybuck041 continued.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: armybuck041 on July 12, 2006, 09:07:06
I guess the National Post picked me up for not using spell check :)
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: MarkOttawa on July 12, 2006, 09:10:29
George Wallace: Just to give a source: Ottawa Citizen, July 12 (full text only for subscribers):
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=6a1c596f-0aa9-471f-ab3b-6eabaae5c740

Quote
'My son knew what he was getting into': Father counters reports that reservist wasn't ready for combat

Excerpt:

'Contributors to the discussion forums at the pro-defence website army.ca yesterday characterized Cpl. Boneca's negative comments as a means of dealing with the intense pressure of front-line combat. One contributor called the complaints "normal army bitching."

"Most of us, myself included, have said allot (sic) of not so well intentioned things due to the stress of being so close to 'quitting time'," wrote another poster, armybuck041.

Cpl. Boneca was less than three weeks away from finishing his second six-month tour of duty in Afghanistan.

"The biggest lesson we as soldiers need to take away from this is how we project ourselves and our experiences to the members of our families waiting on the homefront," armybuck041 continued.'

Mark
Ottawa


Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: GAP on July 12, 2006, 09:10:50
Can we use that for new guys on the site who don't use spellcheck?

WARNING: NOT USING SPELLCHECK WILL RESULT IN NATIONAL POST REPRINTING YOUR POST...WARNING

 ;D
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: GAP on July 12, 2006, 09:15:23
'Contributors to the discussion forums at the pro-defence website army.ca yesterday characterized Cpl. Boneca's negative comments as a means of dealing with the intense pressure of front-line combat. One contributor called the complaints "normal army bitching."

"Most of us, myself included, have said allot (sic) of not so well intentioned things due to the stress of being so close to 'quitting time'," wrote another poster, armybuck041.

Cpl. Boneca was less than three weeks away from finishing his second six-month tour of duty in Afghanistan.

"The biggest lesson we as soldiers need to take away from this is how we project ourselves and our experiences to the members of our families waiting on the homefront," armybuck041 continued.'
Mark
Ottawa

I find that comforting, in a way. The comment was a valid comment, and it was picked up and put out there in the media frenzy as a calm reasoning behind why someone would make off the wall comments.
I am sure, given the opportunity, it could be phrased differently and more effectively, but it was part of the site's discussion and made in context...the media just ignored the context.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: MarkOttawa on July 12, 2006, 09:22:19
Audio of interview with Scott Taylor on CFRA, Ottawa, this morning.  Generally refutes the doom-sayers.
http://www.cfra.com/chum_audio/Scott_Taylor_july12.mp3

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: GAP on July 12, 2006, 09:30:18
Slain soldier was prepared, father says  
Family denies that reservist slain in Afghanistan was misled
GLORIA GALLOWAY  From Wednesday's Globe and Mail   12 July 2006
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060712.wxafghansoll12/BNStory/National/home (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060712.wxafghansoll12/BNStory/National/home)

OTTAWA — The grieving father of a young army reservist killed this week in Afghanistan said his son was proud of the job he was doing and was well trained for the harsh realities Canadian soldiers face in the dusty, war-ravaged country More on Link

I couldn't resist commenting on the article after the last number of days' dialogue..

Quote
I want to thank Cpl. Boneca's father, in this time of grief, to take the time and effort to correct the mass hysteria going on in the media initiated by the former girlfriend and her father. It was not their place to comment so negatively and extensively about things they knew little about, and violated the privacy of communications that had been sent in confidence. What in the world were they thinking, or were they. They can't  have done anything but hurt the immediate family of Cpl. Boneca through their selfish and thoughtless actions and words. Shame on them. If they want attention, go wave a flag, it's the least they can do for Cpl. Boneca.

Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: tonykeene on July 12, 2006, 09:44:34
This is exactly what we were talking about yesterday.  Someone has come forward and made a clear statement, and the reporters have covered it fully.  I predict that columnists and editorial writers will now speak positively of this also.
What bias or hidden agenda are we going to accuse them of having now?
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Teddy Ruxpin on July 12, 2006, 09:48:59
You obviously didn't read my post, so I'll flash it up again:

Quote
The media hasn't reported "important news", they've been searching for controversy and leaping upon it like a pack of ravenous dogs when it appears.

There's no - as in zero - attempt to investigate the background to a story.  Instead we get sensationalism, spurred on by a rather dubious source - the girlfriend's father.  Where is the attempt to determine what the selection and training process for Reserve personnel is?  Where is the explanation as to how Reservists are employed in theatre?  Where is the story outlining how soldiers are fed in the field and how they're supplied?  Where are the caveats that the immediate family has not been interviewed?  Surely that is "important news".  How is the publishing of private e-mails - NOT provided by the family - newsworthy?

Moreover, where are our PAFF people to sort questions like this out?

I don't believe that the media has a political agenda.  Instead, they're after sensationalism and controversy in order to pursue commercial and careerist objectives.  They have behaved abysmally towards fallen soldiers' families in the past (recently here in Edmonton) and invariably get both detail and context completely wrong.  More often than not, the media fails to conduct even the most basic of research before publishing a story - to the point where we still see ranks and units misidentified and operations misconstrued.  This is worse than poor reporting, it is selective attention to detail designed to generate controversy.  The media presence in Kandahar isn't called the "death watch" for nothing...

They ARE biased - towards their own agendas - and have demonstrated that bias time and time again.

That's the bias I'm accusing them of having.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: GAP on July 12, 2006, 10:00:33
This is exactly what we were talking about yesterday.  Someone has come forward and made a clear statement, and the reporters have covered it fully.  I predict that columnists and editorial writers will now speak positively of this also.
What bias or hidden agenda are we going to accuse them of having now?

Granted, the media will now tone down the sensationalism, but, I would bet dollars to donuts that each and every story, in an effort to be fair of course, will continue to highlight the controversy originally written. As in yesterday's articles, they provided the clear statement, then, slide right on into the controversial comments. Read the story, and you tell me what impression you are left with. Not that Cpl Bonica was a good soldier, well trained, etc., but that he was agitating to get out of the mission. That is a bias, and if it can be maintained and blown up, it sells
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: tonykeene on July 12, 2006, 10:47:21
They will of course refer back to it, because the contrast in statements is now the story.  Read Lorrie Goldstein's column in today's Toronto SUN: it raises several of the issues we have been discussing here.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Cataract Kid on July 12, 2006, 10:48:37
Gotta love Christie Blatchford

http://www.theglobeandmail.com//servlet/story/LAC.20060712.AFGHAN12/TPStory/National/columnists
Quote
Major Strickland has visited most if not all of the Canadian wounded at the base hospital here, and the two universal questions he hears, he said, are, "How are my buddies?" and "When can I get back out there?"

NB. My vote would be going to her for that honorary/memberships thing...
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Capt. Happy on July 12, 2006, 11:03:01
Particularly enjoyed the ending of her story:

Quote
Look at what he accomplished: Barely 21, he conquered his fear, he put on his boots and his kit and he was heading up those stairs, clearing that mud-walled compound in that lush grape field on another cloudless, dangerous Afghanistan day, when he was shot. That's bloody answering the bell, by any measure.


Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: George Wallace on July 12, 2006, 11:55:35
They will of course refer back to it, because the contrast in statements is now the story.  Read Lorrie Goldstein's column in today's Toronto SUN: it raises several of the issues we have been discussing here.

Any link?
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: military granny on July 12, 2006, 12:01:42
http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Goldstein_Lorrie/2006/07/12/1680303.html
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Capt. Happy on July 12, 2006, 12:08:42
I don't particularly like his ending though:

Quote
Finally, there are larger issues here. Do young people signing up for our military today fully understand what the changed role of our armed forces from being "peacekeepers" to peacemakers means for them? Will we in the media, wherever we stand on Afghanistan, examine these issues in a way that respects our fallen soldiers and all who serve?

I hope so. But I wouldn't count on it.

Maybe I've been asleep for my last 13 years in the CF, but when was our primary role ever peacekeeping?
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Bruce Monkhouse on July 12, 2006, 12:20:44
Hang on their Keener,....Where are the screamin' headlines?  Why does CBC Radio this morning still say although "this goes directly against what other family members and friends are saying? Will they still try and get pictures using a boom truck?

...and now I will put out there the real reason I believe the girlfiends Father is wrong. [I wrote this when I first heard about the e-mails but trashed it as it was as inapropriate at the time as the media vultures were]

 July 10, 2006, 12:22:43
 Quote,
Boneca emailed friends last week: "It's so hot here now you can barely handle it. I know you're all watching the news and know what's going on here, but don't worry, I'll be okay."

Doesn't sound like the things "girlfriends" Daddy is saying, maybe Daddy wants some "new money" for his daughter?

Yes, I can be callous but I have seen lots worse.....
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: George Wallace on July 12, 2006, 12:23:48
I guess Lorrie Goldstein is from an alternate Universe.  I joined the Canadian Forces many years ago to be a Soldier.  Peacekeeping wasn't even a thought in my subconscious.  We were at war defending the Free World from the Communist Hordes.  'Peacemaking' wasn't even a word back then.  These sound like the ramblings of someone who was never ever a member of a Sports Team, an outdoors organization like Scouts or Guides, or travelled to some of the far flung corners of the world.  Truly a secluded and protected life he must have led.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Chris Pook on July 12, 2006, 12:26:30
I don't particularly like his ending though:

Maybe I've been asleep for my last 13 years in the CF, but when was our primary role ever peacekeeping?

392, I don't think the comment was aimed so much at serving members as young members of the public that have been fed a steady diet of "boy-scoutism".  They have not been given much opportunity to understand the killing-and-dying aspect of soldiering.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Capt. Happy on July 12, 2006, 12:46:13
Hmmmmm.....sounds like a good explanation, but I still don't get how young people signing up get misled into believing we're here for peacekeeping? I mean, all one has to do is read the general job descriptions at the CFRC to realize that peacekeeping isn't the primary focus of the CF. Take the Infantry for example, To close with and destroy the enemy. Doesn't sound too peacekeeping-ish to me.

I think the media has been partaking in said diet of "boy-scoutism" a little too much. I think for the most part, they have chosen to forget that the job of any military is fightin' and dyin'. Of course, there are many reporters / journalists who realize what our primary role is and don't cloud that reality with blue skies and green fields....
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Signalman150 on July 12, 2006, 12:52:57
Tony Keene,
 
I don't want to pee on yr parade square, but here's a couple of important indicators for you that MIGHT help you understand some of the frustration being vented on is board.  I note that yr profile lists you as a Maj/public affairs, but I'm not sure it that means yr a res. major who works for the media as a civilian or if that's your full time mil occupation.

Now, to the gristle: when the story broke relating to the comments by Mr. DeCorte, his daughter, and Cpl Boneca's roomie, there were multiple pieces all over the Yahoo Canada website, both CP and CBC.  They examined, trumpeted, and reaffirmed the opinions of three people not even directly RELATED to Cpl Boneca, and used headlines which essentially suggested the Canadian Government had failed its soldiers and LIED to reservists.  That WAS NOT fact-based reporting Tony, it was hearsay.

I will further note, that the headlines for these pieces were on the Yahoo Canada homepage, (i.e. the front page) in a constant succession of new sensational headlines, such as "Military brushes aside accusations that fallen reservist was ill-trained".

Ah, but then Cpl Boneca's father speaks up, refuting what has been previously said about his son.  THAT never made the Yahoo Canada homepage.  Indeed the "headline" winds up in the sidebar of their secondary and tertiary stories, and is not there today at all, (notwithstanding the fact it wasn't posted until late in the day yesterday).  The sensationalist crap, such as "Reservist was misled by Military", gets front page headlines and stays up all day Tuesday.  The story from the boys' father--THE REAL STORY--gets buried on a virtual backpage and is only up a few hours.

That's absolute crap.

It's not just Yahoo.  The Edmonton Journal had a leader on it's front page yesterday, directing the reader to page 3 where more than a half page was devoted to DeCorte's hearsay.  This morning there was a quarter-page article on page 5 with the father's statement.  Tony, please don't try and tell me that's balanced reporting.  It most certainly is not.  It is an attempt by the media to vilify the Canadian Forces, of which you are a part.

The press sensationalized something that wasn't factually based, and tried to smear the CF generally. In doing so it--at least temporarily--called into question the loyalty, commitment and bravery of Cpl Ton Boneca.  More importantly their negligence and shoddy reporting added to the stress and agony of the family Cpl Boneca left behind.  



Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: MarkOttawa on July 12, 2006, 13:07:13
Signalman150:

+1.

On CBC Newsworld at 11 the host, Nancy Wilson, was interviewing a reporter at Trenton for the arrival.  First question: "Explain the controversy, blah, blah, blah..."  You know, just being fair and balanced.

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Signalman150 on July 12, 2006, 13:18:32
Just sent this to Lorrie Goldstein a couple of minutes ago.  It won't make a difference, but at least he now knows w/out a shadow of a doubt what the msn of the CF is, and has been for as long as I've been around, (50 yrs)

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *


lorrie.goldstein@tor.sunpub.com

Your column "Death of a Soldier" dated 12 July 06

Lorrie,

I am a retired army reserve sergeant with twenty years service. Please allow me to comment on the last couple of lines of the above noted article.

I joined the Canadian Force (Militia) in 1975. At that time Canada was involved in several major peacekeeping missions including the Golan, and Cyprus. When I joined the first thing I learned was the mission of the Canadian Armed Forces.  Lorrie, it was NOT "to maintain the peace between warring or hostile factions".  It was:

To close with, and destroy the enemy.

I was told that, and I remembered it from day one.  No one who joins the reserve has any doubt about the mission of the CF, and no illusions about peacekeeping vs. peacemaking. To this day that remains the mission of the Canadian Forces.

Peacekeeping is just another task in the CF, just like sandbagging floodwaters in Winnipeg, or fighting forest fires in BC--both very civil pursuits carried out by a large body of trained, physically fit, and disciplined young men and women. But back in 1975, just as now, the Canadian army's mission was NEVER peacekeeping, or sandbagging, or firefighting.  It was war fighting. Please do what you can as a journalist to put this silly and pointless myth of the CF as peacekeepers to bed.  We did peacekeeping when that was what our government ordered us to do.  We do warfighting when the government calls us to that.

Yours truly,
TWL
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: GAP on July 12, 2006, 13:23:25
I also sent a little note:

As much as I appreciated the article, I have to question the last paragraph.
 
" Do young people signing up for our military today fully understand what the changed role of our armed forces from being "peacekeepers" to peacemakers means for them? Will we in the media, wherever we stand on Afghanistan, examine these issues in a way that respects our fallen soldiers and all who serve?
I hope so. But I wouldn't count on it. "

The Canadian Forces were never PeaceKeepers. They were, are and always will be a Combat Ready Infantry Force. That they do Peace Keeping missions is all well and good, but you only do those missions as a Combat Infantryman. Things do go South in a hurry, and they had better be prepared to defend themselves....did Lorrie Goldstein think they were armed with water guns?

 

Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: annon223 on July 12, 2006, 14:07:36
I agree with Tony K. 

The media are only reporting what they were told by family, friends and relatives - there were many, many quotes and even some on-camera interviews given to various outlets.  Some of these statements may seem negative to the crowd here, but the media were just doing their job - reporting the story.  When a friend or relative quotes directly to the media that a soldier was "misled", or "hated" it there - it's going to make headlines, period. 

Perhaps you should set your collective sights on them for making such attention-grabbing statements in the first place?
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: dglad on July 12, 2006, 14:17:25
Hmmmmm.....sounds like a good explanation, but I still don't get how young people signing up get misled into believing we're here for peacekeeping? I mean, all one has to do is read the general job descriptions at the CFRC to realize that peacekeeping isn't the primary focus of the CF. Take the Infantry for example, To close with and destroy the enemy. Doesn't sound too peacekeeping-ish to me.

Well put.  But, expanding your point, I don't think young people actually DO believe that they're signing up primarily as "peacekeepers".  I've worked with a multitude of young men and women who have lugged around rifles, MGs, anti-armour weapons, gone on raids, hasty attacks, deliberate attacks, done field firing, etc., etc. and I daresay none of them are under any misconception that it was all about some vague end-state called "peacekeeping".  I'll allow that I'm not well positioned to speak for those soldiers who aren't combat arms, of course, but I'd be pretty comfortable betting that my colleagues in CSS, signals, medical, and so on are similarly clear on what it means to be a soldier.

As someone said, this whole "peacekeeping" thing really only exists in the minds of those who don't actually understand soldiering.  "Classical Pearsonian" peacekeeping is, at best, one of many tasks soldiers can be given and, at worst, a relic-term of a bygone era, like "Cold War" and "Warsaw Pact".
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Bruce Monkhouse on July 12, 2006, 14:18:55
I agree with Tony K. 

What a suprise. ;)

Perhaps you should set your collective sights on them for making such attention-grabbing statements in the first place?

We did.

but the media were just doing their job - reporting the story.  When a friend or relative quotes directly to the media that a soldier was "misled", or "hated" it there - it's going to make headlines, period. 

See Edward's post here.....and reflect.
http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,47110.msg410183.html#msg410183
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Bruce Monkhouse on July 12, 2006, 14:29:46
Anon,
I know you[ or a real close co-worker] are now lurking as a guest,
13:26:09 Viewing the topic Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death".

Why not stay on?
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Towards_the_gap on July 12, 2006, 14:39:30
I agree with Tony K. 

The media are only reporting what they were told by family, friends and relatives - there were many, many quotes and even some on-camera interviews given to various outlets.  Some of these statements may seem negative to the crowd here, but the media were just doing their job - reporting the story.  When a friend or relative quotes directly to the media that a soldier was "misled", or "hated" it there - it's going to make headlines, period. 

Perhaps you should set your collective sights on them for making such attention-grabbing statements in the first place?


Fair one, they were doing they're job in reporting the news. The issue I, probably most of us, have is HOW it was reported. For example, in yesterdays London Free Press, the front page, bold lettered banner headline was 'He Was Misled'.

I would expect this of a cheapo, second rate tabloid newspaper. Not your normal broadsheet. The media needs to realise that how, not what, they report has a huge influence on public opinion, and sensationalist comments like this, without the added proviso that at the end of the day any comments he may or may not have made to the press are only hearsay, do a great disservice not only to the media as an institution, but the military as well.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Michael Dorosh on July 12, 2006, 14:42:14
I agree with Tony K. 

The media are only reporting what they were told by family, friends and relatives -

THAT'S THE PROBLEM!!!!
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Signalman150 on July 12, 2006, 14:43:04
Annon223,

It's pretty hard to take you vy seriously based on yr profile...i.e. you signed up today, and there's the square root of f***-all to tell me what or who you are.  Nonetheless, I will risk answering yr comment.

I agree with Tony K. 

The media are only reporting what they were told by family, friends and relatives - there were many, many quotes and even some on-camera interviews given to various outlets.  Some of these statements may seem negative to the crowd here, but the media were just doing their job - reporting the story.  When a friend or relative quotes directly to the media that a soldier was "misled", or "hated" it there - it's going to make headlines, period. 

Perhaps you should set your collective sights on them for making such attention-grabbing statements in the first place?

Since I know neither yr age, or profession, I don't know how much you've experienced the grief of losing a loved one.  It's not nice, it's not rational.  The first stage involves a lot of emotion, and it's vy common to lash out at anything and everything that may have been associated with the death.  I've been there too many times, and as much as I know about this irrational aspect, it's repeated every time.  Damn: comes from being human.

But the point is it is emotion, raw and bleeding.  It is not news.  Reporters who insist on quoting the "bereaved widow", or the "grieving children" should not be shot...for a first offence.  Emotion, recrimination, and grief are not news, they are sensationalism.  And reporters who are in a great hurry to get that into print are of no value to society.  In a week's time, when the harsh reality has settled in on Cpl Boneca's girlfriend, roomie, etc.  will they feel the same way?  I will not speak for them, but it won't surprise me if they have reevaluated their opinions.  Will those same reporters come again to hear it.  Uh-uh, not sensationalist enough.

And as regard yr last comment, I would never "zero-in" on someone in the first stages of grief.  They are allowed their emotion, however irrational and harsh. I will "zero-in" on those who seek to exploit their grief, and put everything out of proportion at the expense of the deceased and his family.



BTW, it wasn't immediate family that was interviewed, it was friends, and fathers of friends (which is pretty pathetic).
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Cdn. Royal on July 12, 2006, 14:52:43
Signalman150 Great post...I totally agree. ( not that you need my approval) I'm just not as eloquent with words as you are....
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Jarnhamar on July 12, 2006, 14:52:58
I'm getting a real kick out of the subtle insinuations against reservists. In an article in a local news paper today I read something that just made me shake my head.

Quote
The father of Boneca's girlfriend, Larry DeCorte, questioned the wisdom of putting reservists on the front line. "Mentally, they weren't ready for the hand-to-hand battle and all this other stuff" he said.

Umm, what?  Just how are you in a position to decide what mental state our soldiers are in and whether they are ready or not for battle? Looks like someone needs to stay in their lanes.

As for people suggesting we don't know what were getting into or that stupid peacekeeper debate, keep your help. Go find something else to crusade.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: annon223 on July 12, 2006, 14:54:08
OK, so family, friends, and uncles and aunts don't count for quotes.  Listen, when you get strong words like that from people who were in actual verbal or e-mail contact with the soldier, it'll stir controversy as much as you like it or not.  Just don't blame the media for reporting this - that's their job.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: aesop081 on July 12, 2006, 14:55:42
OK, so family, friends, and uncles and aunts don't count for quotes.  Listen, when you get strong words like that from people who were in actual verbal or e-mail contact with the soldier, it'll stir controversy as much as you like it or not.  Just don't blame the media for reporting this - that's their job.

who are you exactly ?
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Bruce Monkhouse on July 12, 2006, 14:58:13
OK, so family, friends, and uncles and aunts don't count for quotes.  Listen, when you get strong words like that from people who were in actual verbal or e-mail contact with the soldier, it'll stir controversy as much as you like it or not.  Just don't blame the media for reporting this - that's their job.

Bullpoop!!!  If thats true than why couldn't this wait untill after the lad was brought home, thus allowing more time for research and also, just for good old common decency?

It would then be NEWS not "controversy".
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Teddy Ruxpin on July 12, 2006, 15:02:10
Yes, but where was the context?  Where was the background information?  Where was the (even cursory) investigation as to what training was conducted?  Where was the effort to ask how Reservists are selected for deployment?  Where were the interviews with soldiers who had previously deployed, again to place things in context?  Where was any effort to place these "friends" comments in context, when the actual immediate family had not been heard from?  Where was the sense of decency when the media chose to publish private e-mails released by a rather dubious "friend"?

The media did NOT do their job.  Instead, they leapt upon the controversy like ravenous jackals, with little regard for even the most basic of research or fact-finding in their haste to report "strong words".  A bit of responsibility would have gone a long way here, yet we saw very little.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: annon223 on July 12, 2006, 15:03:03
Bruce,

You should direct your comments towards the people that made the comments, not the media that reported them.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Bruce Monkhouse on July 12, 2006, 15:04:24
Anon223,

Did you at least do the research of reading the Ruxted editorial before you jumped in here?
http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,47109.msg410344.html#new
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: HollywoodHitman on July 12, 2006, 15:05:49
I knew Tony. I’ve kept my comments to myself until I could calm down my outrage over the media coverage of his death. We weren’t great friends, but buddies. Other soldiers know what I mean. I spoke to Tony a couple weeks ago out at one of the FOB’s. Not much said, just that there was a job to do, some bitching about the heat and the food, reminders that it would soon all be over, discussions of plans upon returning to Canada, the promise to drink some beers together on our way home. Normal soldier stuff. There is nothing in his first and last letters as published in the newspapers to suggest he was any more miserable than any other soldier, in any army, in any theatre in the world. It is our right to ***** and complain. A soldier who is not doing either, is upset or distressed and needs attention. A soldier who is not scared out there is a liar or crazy. As a soldier you do not ignore fear, you manage it. Welcome to war.

I have been in Kandahar for 6 months, and I'm sure I don't like it here anymore than Tony did. I don't know many, if any who do like it here. The infantry and those supporting them out the wire have it especially tough. Little rest, little in the way of comforts and the most exposure to the dangerous stuff. Generally we like our jobs, and being operational, that’s why we do this. We play for keeps in the big game. No one here comes wanting to die, or to do stupid things that will get you killed. Each and every one of us know the random nature of war. Everyone here knows someone who has died or been wounded or knows someone who does. It touches us all in some way. crap happens. I don’t think anyone truly enjoys being away from their families or comforts.  But this is why we join. To serve Canada and her foreign policy in whatever capacity is determined by the politicians. We have a mission, a mission carried out by soldiers, doing the legally sanctioned business of our elected government. Sometimes we like it, sometimes we don’t. Nature of the business. That’s the flag waving part of it, but there are other reasons we do this that people who have never served cannot possibly understand. I will not endeavour to explain it to you if you have not.

More importantly, to live the life of a soldier with the values that so many use as punch lines at parties. Duty, honour, courage and integrity. Soldiers aren’t perfect, and sometimes these attributes are forgotten once in awhile, but at the core they are always there. Without them our military would disintegrate. Those who criticize have the freedom to do so only by the grace of those who would give their lives for the stability and physical isolation from most threats that we enjoy in Canada. He, along with every other Canadian Soldier in this mission knew exactly what to expect when we got here. Not once did we EVER get told this was a peacekeeping operation. Anyone here who thought this was a peacekeeping mission is or was most certainly completely out of touch with reality.  

Tony was trained as a Canadian Infantry Soldier and was doing the job for which he had been trained. The role of the Infantry is to close with and destroy the enemy. Our reason to be is not to kiss babies and hand out candies and blankets. We do that anyway, because we’re decent, generally caring Canadian boys and girls, but that’s not our primary function. To quote General Hillier “We are not the public service of Canada. We are the Canadian Forces and our job is to be able kill people.” There are problems on this mission. Find me one operation that has ever occurred problem free and I will recant my statement to that and humbly apologise for my long winded rant. Hell, I’ll leave the army. But good luck with that. It’ll never happen.
The soldiers on the ground, whether it’s pretty or not are doing their jobs as ordered and as required, some well, some not so well but they’re here.

As for Tony being a reservist. So what? We receive excellent training and to suggest otherwise is irresponsible reporting, but that’s nothing new. Could training be better for both Reserve and Regular? Sure. Could the Reserve and the Regular force get more money and equipment for training? Sure. The Federal government and NDHQ seem to be doing their best to address our needs as a military. It is now a vast improvement over tours in the past, and over the last dozen or more years. The recent announcements seem to reflect the seriousness of the commitment of our leaders to the military and through us the security of the Canadian people. As a Reservist myself, I take offence to the suggestion that reservists should not be deployed. Look at the Reservists throughout history who have distinguished themselves. Look how many have done so within the last 15 or so years. When the guy dragging you, blood soaked and wounded is a Reservist, the guy being dragged doesn’t think of that. He doesn’t care. The examples go back to each war or situation we have found ourselves in as a country.

I am a professional soldier, as are countless numbers of other reservists who work hard to ensure that they maintain a high level of skill and proficiency so we can augment and support our regular force brothers and sisters. It is a mindset and a way of life that one does not have to live day in and day out in order to embody what professional soldiering entails.

 I am sure there is a long line up of Reservists and their Regular force counterparts in Afghanistan and elsewhere who would argue openly with anyone who would suggest differently. Mr / Ms reporter ; Please, suggest to my face or that of my military family that we do not possess the mindset or the skills needed to engage in combat. I don’t think you have the parts or the qualifications to make such a statement. You do however have the parts and the audacity to drag the family, friends and colleagues of Tony Boneca through the mud so you can sell papers and airtime and generate controversy. You do your country and your military a disservice but also have undoubtedly cause Tony’s parents a great deal of unneeded and unwanted stress. . You also do the general public a great disservice because you corrupt the truth and cloud the heroic activities of our soldiers, and you fuel the rhetoric spewed forth by the anti everything wackos out there.

As has so often happened in the media with respect to our military, I have lumped all media into one category. I will however offer the caveat, a courtesy if you will that isn’t generally afforded to the military or it’s members, as has been demonstrated by the ‘media machine’ these past few days. The caveat is this. You’re not all bad, or the way I describe. Some of you even seem to love us, some of those that are embedded and grow to care deeply for and respect the soldiers on whom they are depending for their very lives and safety.  There are a few bad apples and armchair warriors that put pen to paper or make ludicrous unsubstantiated statements and cause the mistrust I feel for your profession right now.

The media as a profession should be ashamed of themselves. Why not self police? If the reporters responsible for this latest reporting can look in the mirror in the morning after the disgusting and shameful coverage your have made of Tony's death, then I would go so far as to suggest that they are of questionable integrity and moral fibre.

You as a public voice have a responsibility to report properly, to research and deliver a balanced article with facts. CTV Newsnet or one of the CTV affiliates I believe, referred to Cpl Boneca as an Artillery soldier. Wrong. Bombardier Mansell and Capt. Goddard were Artillery soldiers. Boneca was an Infantry soldier attached to 1VP. A simple oversight by a media who was less interested in reporting properly than it was getting the story out. Nice work. Trivial example maybe, but accurate and demonstrative, yes. Another example; The ‘collective You’ talk about 3 of the 9 soldiers killed on this tour being Reservists. You fail to point out that 2 of the 3 were in the same vehicle when it was blown up by an IED outside of Gumbad. Misrepresentation of or omission of key facts?

Allow Tony's family to grieve in private. Not only honour, but for a change respect the wishes and dignity of his grieving parents and honour the memory of a soldier who died the way a soldier should. Not in an unfortunate accident, not in a roadside bomb, but in combat. These are my opinions/observations and mine alone. I don’t often say a lot in here, but I am compelled to now.

Well done Tony. I'm glad to have known you. You were a nice kid with a bright future. I am certain you are in that fabled place that all warriors go, where our fallen soldiers by whatever mechanism they perished, watch over us all. I would like to have seen what you may have accomplished later in life as a result of your soldiering experiences. I was looking forward to the beers we talked about during the trip home. To your family other friends, and your Regiment, I offer you my most sincere condolences and I wish you peace and quiet to reflect on the life of your son and friend. :cdn:

Cheers,

HH
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Mike Bobbitt on July 12, 2006, 15:07:18
Bruce,

You should direct your comments towards the people that made the comments, not the media that reported them.

There's a distinction to be made here... the people who made the comments are dealing with the loss of a friend/relative, and are entitled to be a bit emotional about it - even angry at the CF about it. That's their perogative and IMO perfectly acceptable.

The media are professionals, paid to do a job. It's our opinion that many of them are doing it poorly.

Big difference.


Edit: HollywoodHitman, I'm tempted to lock this thead after your post... what more could possibly be said? Well done, you honour Cpl. Boneca's memory with your efforts.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: George Wallace on July 12, 2006, 15:09:37
Tony Keene, annon223, we all know you have vested interests in the 'Media' so perhaps you can go back to this post and perhaps justify your defence of the way that the Media is handling it?  Try and tell us again how this is not 'sensationalism', but 'honest' journalism.

Tony Keene,
 
I don't want to pee on yr parade square, but here's a couple of important indicators for you that MIGHT help you understand some of the frustration being vented on is board.  I note that yr profile lists you as a Maj/public affairs, but I'm not sure it that means yr a res. major who works for the media as a civilian or if that's your full time mil occupation.

Now, to the gristle: when the story broke relating to the comments by Mr. DeCorte, his daughter, and Cpl Boneca's roomie, there were multiple pieces all over the Yahoo Canada website, both CP and CBC.  They examined, trumpeted, and reaffirmed the opinions of three people not even directly RELATED to Cpl Boneca, and used headlines which essentially suggested the Canadian Government had failed its soldiers and LIED to reservists.  That WAS NOT fact-based reporting Tony, it was hearsay.

I will further note, that the headlines for these pieces were on the Yahoo Canada homepage, (i.e. the front page) in a constant succession of new sensational headlines, such as "Military brushes aside accusations that fallen reservist was ill-trained".

Ah, but then Cpl Boneca's father speaks up, refuting what has been previously said about his son.  THAT never made the Yahoo Canada homepage.  Indeed the "headline" winds up in the sidebar of their secondary and tertiary stories, and is not there today at all, (notwithstanding the fact it wasn't posted until late in the day yesterday).  The sensationalist crap, such as "Reservist was misled by Military", gets front page headlines and stays up all day Tuesday.  The story from the boys' father--THE REAL STORY--gets buried on a virtual backpage and is only up a few hours.

That's absolute crap.

It's not just Yahoo.  The Edmonton Journal had a leader on it's front page yesterday, directing the reader to page 3 where more than a half page was devoted to DeCorte's hearsay.  This morning there was a quarter-page article on page 5 with the father's statement.  Tony, please don't try and tell me that's balanced reporting.  It most certainly is not.  It is an attempt by the media to vilify the Canadian Forces, of which you are a part.

The press sensationalized something that wasn't factually based, and tried to smear the CF generally. In doing so it--at least temporarily--called into question the loyalty, commitment and bravery of Cpl Ton Boneca.  More importantly their negligence and shoddy reporting added to the stress and agony of the family Cpl Boneca left behind.  

Funny how any apology or 'Retraction' is buried in the back somewhere.....leaving all the sensationalist trash fresh in the Public's minds, as we know they aren't likely to find the apology/retraction hidden away in the bowls of the paper.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Bruce Monkhouse on July 12, 2006, 15:12:42
HH........thank you.
Take care Soldier.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: probum non poenitet on July 12, 2006, 15:14:19
There have been a lot of excellent posts in this thread.  I’ve got a lot to get off my chest.

I think a lot of the points raised here go beyond the issue of Cpl Boneca's death, to the larger and ongoing relationship between the CF, the media, the government, and the public.

I find this relationship a fragile one, and it is sometimes hard to keep cool judgement, because for most of us on this board we are either in, returning from, or going into harm's way, and if not us, close friends and family.
But the relationship is an important one, a vital one, yet many Canadians don’t appreciate the damage that could be visited upon our society if that relationship were to break down.

I agree with Teddy Ruxpin's assessment of how many members of the media operate. There are still some ethical reporters out there, but they are fighting a system that often favours the unscrupulous.
Tony Keene, I see you have put thought into your arguments, but I disagree with much of what you say.

It think we are fighting at least five ‘sins of the media’: sensationalism, inaccuracy, politicization, anti-authoritarianism, and disinformation. These are separate but intertwined.

SENSATIONALISM - I don't agree with reporters approaching families of the deceased immediately, whether or not, as Tony Keene suggests, those families support us or not. This doesn’t apply only to us – civilian victims of crime and accident usually receive the same treatment.
They are approached when the grief and shock is at its height, because in my opinion, that is when they are most likely to say something ‘interesting’ – i.e. sensational. Emotions are high such as anger, grief, regret, guilt, and many people in those situations will lash out at something, anything, to make sense of it all.
Chances are in two months, even if those victims continue to hold the same opinions, they will be expressed in a less dramatic fashion, so they hold less ‘pizazz’. The story will have retained its substance, but lost its excitement. To the back page the story goes, or more likely to oblivion. Any long-term pain visited upon the family by insensitive reporting is ‘collateral damage.’
Dignity is what separates news from infotainment, and I feel as a society we are losing that battle.
Was there ever a time when there was respect for the family of the dead? Am I dreaming? Was there ever a time when people looked at the family of a slain soldier or police officer and said, “Allow them to grieve, they owe us nothing more, how can we help them?”
Isn’t it ironic that at a time when the public should be rushing to help the family, or at the very least leaving them alone, that they are obliged to issue statements to defend their dignity?
When did this change? Is this the new norm?

INACCURACY – Picking up the phone and checking facts has become more of a ‘luxury’ in the age of 24 hour news. Wire services and electronic media think in terms of minutes, not hours, and if they can get the punchier 50% accurate headline out today, it often trumps the 100% accurate headline tomorrow.
Using this last ‘Reservist misled’ fiasco as an example, did they talk to a single reservist currently on ops, or for that matter, who has EVER gone on ops, and asked such questions as, “The regulars do the combat, but reservists do the peacekeeping, right?” Or “They just called you up and sent you into combat, right?”
In a five minute conversation, any reservist I know who has been overseas would set them straight. That’s lazy, sloppy reporting, nothing less.
The media are far more careful about this when dealing with big business, because big business sues or yanks/threatens to yank sponsorship when they get a raw deal.
Because the CF play fair, we are an easy target, along with police, government, etc.
If you are going to hang us for incompetence, (and that is a legitimate role of the media) at least do us the decency of getting the facts straight.

POLITICIZATION – This one is the real killer. This is just my opinion, but it is the one that I think can do us the most harm. It is fairly easy to see that many media outlets in this country, and most newspapers, have an identifiable political slant.
The Toronto Star is quite ‘left’, The National Post is quite ‘right’ and on and on.
Often, (again just my opinion) these papers directly or indirectly stump for their favourite political party.
Here’s the danger: in the May 17 Parliamentary debate on the extension of the mission, on that date the war became, in my opinion, a partisan political issue.
This may be a simplistic analysis, but after that debate, to me the lines have been drawn in the mind of the public:
Harper and the Conservatives became ‘pro-war’ a la Bush.
The NDP and the Bloc became ‘anti-war.’ (You may say they were always that way, but they were awfully quiet about it when Martin was PM).
The Liberals became, in their magic way, all things to all people: mainly anti-war, but kind of a little bit pro-war, in a ‘we’ll see if Harper doesn’t botch it then it was our idea after all’ way.
The result for the soldiers on the ground is not a good one.
What I feel is that a successful military outcome in Afghanistan has been subtly tied to the Conservatives, and conversely, a military failure has been tied to the NDs and BQ, and a mildly successful but mostly screwed up outcome is great for the Liberals.
Does that hurt to say? It hurts me like hell. But IMHO that is our political reality.
So while our soldiers and their loved ones go through physical and mental hell for a cause they are willing to die for, many of our politicians and their media backers are (again just my peasant opinion) crossing their fingers that it all goes wrong.
And THAT is why, Mr. Keene, soldiers can smell the sharks in the media, just WAITING for us, hands rubbing in glee, to screw something up.
Will me make a mistake? Oh, you can count on it. It’s inevitable – thousands of troops in a volatile situation – things will go wrong. And when the facts of our mistakes DO check out, you are going to see some media outlets let rip on our soldiers with a viciousness that the Taliban would admire.

ANTI-AUTHORITARIANISM – Connected to politics, but not always. There are some folks in our media who just love tearing down cops and soldiers. Remember post-Somalia? It was open season – not just on torture, murder, cover-up, and other things worth looking into. Hell no, I remember reading prominent stories about soldiers ‘arrested for impaired driving’ implying that the CF were rife with criminals, or who can forget the national shame that ‘soldiers in Yugo had sex with nurses.’ SEX! With NURSES!
It got bloody ridiculous.
Have the media been kind to us since 9-11? Often yes. You bet. Often they’ve been great. Locally, we have had soldiers arrested for drug dealing, kiddie porn, domestic violence, etc. and they are handled in the media with attention that I would consider ‘fair’. Facts are brought out and presented, visibly but not hysterically, and then the world moves on.
I have no problem with the media reporting our mistakes and missteps, but just like schoolyard teasing, with certain reporters/outlets you can tell when there’s spite behind a remark.
And again, call me old-fashioned, but when there’s a war, and you ask troops to go and fight and die, doesn’t society owe them a pat on the back? A bit of respect?
Do we have to beg for it, CONSTANTLY?
I remember the NDP MP Paul Dewar saying he wouldn’t get caught up in “jingoistic ballyhoo” during the debate. It’s a common Canadian sentiment that you are ‘right wing’ if you go so far as to put a yellow ribbon magnet on your car or shake a soldier’s hand.
It’s the old story – people call cops ‘pigs’ but trip over themselves calling 911 when someone breaks into their home.
It’s an old argument, not new. Oh, I also remember going off to ‘blue beret peacekeep’ and being called warmonger and all that other garbage, which most of us here old enough to remember will probably back up.
With many Canadians you can’t win. I could take it before. But with every casualty we take, I find cutting remarks like ‘imperialist fascist warmonger’ harder and harder to take.
Throat punching is wrong. We serve the public. But the covenant between military and public is a two way street, and you don’t ask people to die and then throw them away.
I appreciate those who hold diverse arguments in a democracy. I stand for the right for people to hold that opinion. But after 20 years of explaining over and over again to people who are often shockingly uninformed (not of DIFFERENT opinion, but of FACTUALLY WRONG opinion) I have concluded that many ‘debaters’ don’t give a hoot for world politics, they just get a charge out of snotting off to someone in authority.

DISINFORMATION The enemy is out there. The 911 conspiracy theorists would tell you otherwise, but terrorists do exist. They are not stupid. They are watching us and loving our internal dissent, because it is their best, if not only chance for victory in Afghanistan. There is a strong possibility they are visiting this forum, just as an aside.
In the 1980s, if you talked of Soviet plans to blanket Western Europe with nukes and chemicals, or that they had sleeper cells in the West, you were often laughed off as a paranoid Joe McCarthy.
The Wall came down, the records were opened, and lo and behold, the fears were real. Proved.
Ever hear that admitted by the military-bashers of that era? I haven’t.
Also documented post-Cold War were robust Soviet efforts to manipulate our media and public opinion.
One can only assume it is being done now. Everytime I see the media dutifully reporting the plight of a doe-eyed gentleman fingered by CSIS as a terrorist, who has “Absolutely no idea why he has been detained,” I shake my head.

“Free Press” and “Right to Know” are vital to a democracy. They guard democracy.
But, as the old saying goes, who guards the guards?
If the press is content to bash the CF for all the wrong reasons, they can damage us.
It can creep into our national psyche.
I feel empathy bordering on rage when I think of the hundreds of soldiers that will return soon.
They will have seen friends die. They will bear wounds of body and mind that may never heal.
And they will come back to a half-interested public that is often ungrateful, childish, spiteful, capricious, and a media who feeds their whims.

I don’t know what can be done. Even in World War II we had riots in this country against conscription while thousands were killed overseas, so anti-military petulance is part of our makeup I suppose. I don’t expect legions of people scattering flowers at our feet. I don’t expect people who feel the war is wrong to change their mind.

But there is something sick and wrong about the subtle abuse hurled at our soldiers by yellow journalism

Maybe it’s just another thing we have to deal with, like IEDs, bad weather, PTSD, sandflies, etc.

Sorry for the long rant.

Hollywood, just read your post: outstanding.  :salute:
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Chris Pook on July 12, 2006, 15:14:52
Quote
Hmmmmm.....sounds like a good explanation, but I still don't get how young people signing up get misled into believing we're here for peacekeeping? I mean, all one has to do is read the general job descriptions at the CFRC to realize that peacekeeping isn't the primary focus of the CF. Take the Infantry for example, To close with and destroy the enemy. Doesn't sound too peacekeeping-ish to me.

392, I take what you and dglad are saying and accept it, but I think we might be talking about two different groups of people here.  Those that show up at the door determined to come in and soldier and those that  avert their eyes and shudder as they walk past the door wondering what's on the other side.  We have many shudderers in Canada.  It is for their benefit that soldiering was sold as peacekeeping.  It kept the lights on and some of the bills paid.

Tony and annon223 - I am with the rest of the folks here.  The most important job for you lot seems not to be the feature articles - there are extremely few reporters/journalists/columnists that are allowed to write in depth stories in any event.  It seems your job is to create black marks on the page under sensational headlines. It is all about the shock, surprise and outrage.  If there isn't any you will create it.  Don't pretend that that is about anything more than selling papers at best, pamphleteering at worst.

As the folks here have pointed out - if you were interested in balance the frontpage headline of the London Free Press "HE WAS MISLED" would have been matched by another front page headline "NO HE WASN'T".  The fact that both were opinions pertaining to the same case and not "facts" would seem to merit equal treatment if they needed to be treated at all.  

God help the lot of you if somebody stuffs a mike in your face after you have been gut-punched.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: military granny on July 12, 2006, 15:15:23
HH
Thank you for a very well written post. You take care over in the sand box and come home safe.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: annon223 on July 12, 2006, 15:17:28
Mike,

How are the media doing this badly - by reporting the truth?  The "friends" went very public, some on-camera, well-composed, and in a television studio to say what they felt they had to say.  To say the media got this wrong is absurd.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: mudeater on July 12, 2006, 15:20:06
A letter to the editor in today's National Post

Re: Dead Soldier Had Doubts, But Reservists Well-Trained: O'Connor, July 11.
As a member of the Canadian Forces Reserve I find the media's coverage of Corporal Anthony Boneca's death shameful. This young man died as a hero in the service of his country, and now his death has been turned into political story about alleged problems in the Armed Forces Reserve training program even before he is buried.
All soldiers complain about their jobs and missions from time to time. It relieves stress. Office workers have the right to gripe about their bosses and assignments. Are soldiers not afforded this same freedom of expression? Complaining does not imply a fault in the system.
While I was doing my basic army training I lamented to my wife numerous times how much I hated military life and was going to quit. I stuck it out though and I am glad I did. Military life comes with much sacrifice, but also many great rewards that no other job can provide.
Cpl. Boneca and his fellow troops may have been overworked while on tour, as his family suggests, but that is the fault of the former Liberal government and the Canadian public at large for allowing our military to decay for more than a decade.
Also, for the media to pursue the angle that Reserve soldiers are less trained than Regular force soldiers is a slap in the face to all Reservists. We are no less trained then Regular force soldiers heading to Afghanistan, as the Defence Minister has stated. Each Reserve member is sent on a six-month full-time training program -- where skills such as urban operations, the three-block war and convoy security are taught -- before heading to Afghanistan.
In the past with operations in places such as Bosnia, many Reservists I have spoke to said they were left at the main camp doing general duties far from the action. This is not what they wanted to do. It isn't what I would want to do. We are well trained and want to contribute in a meaningful way, even if that means risking our lives on the front lines.
Cpl. Boneca was a fine soldier who gave his life in the service of Canada in the hopes of bringing peace and stability to a dangerous region. He can no longer speak for himself nor give his own opinions on the Afghanistan mission. Canadians and the media, therefore, have a duty to fully explore the military and its role in the current mission. For starters, talk to a member of the Canadian Forces.
Private Chris Vernon, Lorne Scots Regiment,
Brampton, Ont.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Bruce Monkhouse on July 12, 2006, 15:23:07
Mike,
How are the media doing this badly - by reporting the truth?  The "friends" went very public, some on-camera, well-composed, and in a television studio to say what they felt they had to say.  To say the media got this wrong is absurd.

How do you know its "the truth"?

The day after my Father died I was thinking a lot of different things then I was thinking just days later.[and now]
Which thought is "the truth"?
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Signalman150 on July 12, 2006, 15:23:28
Hollywood Hitman,

You said it.

You said it with heart.

You said it with feeling.

You said it eloquently.

Come home safe man.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Capt. Happy on July 12, 2006, 15:25:50
392, I take what you and dglad are saying and accept it, but I think we might be talking about two different groups of people here.  Those that show up at the door determined to come in and soldier and those that as they avert their eyes and shudder as they walk past the door wondering what's on the other side.  We have many shudderers in Canada.  It is for their benefit that soldiering was sold as peacekeeping.  It kept the lights on and some of the bills paid.

Seen....
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Chris Pook on July 12, 2006, 15:26:15
Megapluses HH.

annon223: - Is it enough just to have two people repeat the same lie to have that qualify as a reportable fact?
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: George Wallace on July 12, 2006, 15:27:12
Mike,

How are the media doing this badly - by reporting the truth?  The "friends" went very public, some on-camera, well-composed, and in a television studio to say what they felt they had to say.  To say the media got this wrong is absurd.
GoTo Post # 156 and answer that.

Why are the "LIES" Front page news, but the truth gets buried in the back of the paper?

Get off your high horse!
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Signalman150 on July 12, 2006, 15:28:05
Bruce/Mike

I dunno, this guy Annon is flying the Jolly Roger and won't declare his intentions (or tell us who he is).  He's not reading the posts, he's simply repeating the same thing over and over, with no discernable new information or justification.

I'm calling a Troll Sighting....
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Bruce Monkhouse on July 12, 2006, 15:30:19
You may be right,...trying to goad us into a  Military Hates The Free Press  headline.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Mike Bobbitt on July 12, 2006, 15:37:08
Mike,

How are the media doing this badly - by reporting the truth?  The "friends" went very public, some on-camera, well-composed, and in a television studio to say what they felt they had to say.  To say the media got this wrong is absurd.

It's well covered ground by now, but I think it's clear that they did it "badly" by weighting the negative comments far more heavily than the positive ones. We've been down this road before, but to summarize:

sensationalism == increase in sales == making money for the media == a more sought after journalist

The system is broken when it entices - even requires - a journalist to exploit and sensationalize to be considered "good" at their craft by their employer.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Signalman150 on July 12, 2006, 15:42:11
Moderator

I just received a rather decent reply (via my regular email) from Lorrie Goldstein regarding his column earlier today. (Please see post number 137 of this thread).  I'd like to post the reply for the others to view, but I'm not sure if there's copyright issues.  Can you clarify?
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Mike Bobbitt on July 12, 2006, 15:45:39
I think in the interest of "balanced reporting" it would be good to post it. While it was intended as a private communicaiton, I'm sure Mr. Goldstein would not be surprised to see it reproduced here, in the context of the thread.

Having said that, I'm no lawyer.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: annon223 on July 12, 2006, 15:48:05
Mike,

I don't get it?  Why on earth continue to blame the media for comments made to them by family and friends?  These guys cover both sides of the story - positive and negative.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: SigOpDraco on July 12, 2006, 15:49:50
Best to ask him first.

I don't see any legal problems, but as a private conversation done over email it's probobly be best to ask whether or not he would mind if the emails were posted up publically.

Then link to the spot where the post is.



Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: George Wallace on July 12, 2006, 15:51:06
I guess (s)he can't be a member of the media.  (S)He isn't unbiased, nor capable of looking at the big picture.  (S)He still doesn't see that the press has taken the words of aquaintances and run with that, and more or less ignored the words of the Family.   ::)
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Signalman150 on July 12, 2006, 15:51:19
Reply from Lorrie Goldstein to an email I sent him this morning regarding his comment in the Toronto Sun. See post 137 of this thread for my original email.  I'm not letting him off the hook completely, but he gets brownie points for his answer.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *  

Lorrie Goldstein
Subject: Re: Your column Death of a Soldier dated 12 July 06

    
Thanks for writing. Agreed. I could have worded that last bit better.

Originally I had included a line that "peacekeeping" itself was often a
poor description of what so-called "peacekeeping missions" actually
entailed. In retrospect, I should have left it in.

Lorrie Goldstein
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Fishbone Jones on July 12, 2006, 15:52:14
This same press published private emails in the paper the other day. They didn't seem to have a problem doing it. Neither should you. If they didn't request privacy, they shouldn't expect it. Go for it.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Mike Bobbitt on July 12, 2006, 15:54:16
I don't get it?

I can see that.

Why on earth continue to blame the media for comments made to them by family and friends?

The media is responsible for what they report and how they report it. I don't deny that what they're reporting is fact. I.E. What they're quoting has been said by the attributed people. However there's a lot that's been said by those same people and others which has not made bold headlines nationwide. Many of the news reports are being terribly selective about the facts they choose to report.

These guys cover both sides of the story - positive and negative.

All we're asking for is balance, give the "positive" side the same level of coverage as the "negative" side, since it's an equal part of the story.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: KevinB on July 12, 2006, 15:57:36
HollywoodHitman -- outstanding  :salute:


annon223 is a troll -- just ignore it, maybe (hopefully) it will go away. 
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: George Wallace on July 12, 2006, 15:57:55
Actually I would say that this comment is only double speak: ""peacekeeping" itself was often a poor description of what so-called "peacekeeping missions" actually entailed."

Still doesn't correct the misconception the Public (and Press) have about the term 'Peacekeeping', and still alludes to our doing Peacekeeping in Afghanistan.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Signalman150 on July 12, 2006, 16:04:21
George.

Agreed.  I'm finding it difficult to work through how hard it is for civs (particularly those who were in their teens and early adulthood in the 70s) to understand that peacekeeping is a role, not a mission.  It IS hard for them, but they've been indoctrinated.

The governments of the 70s--in their efforts to dismantle the CF, (and because of negative reaction from the Vietnam era US)--pushed the whole idea of the CF as being "just for peacekeeping".  Anyone who served in those years knows better, but it's hard to get the government inspired myth out of older, greying heads. 
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: annon223 on July 12, 2006, 16:36:38
George,

I don't think the media ignored the words of the family - they were simply the last to speak.  Don't blame them.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: MarkOttawa on July 12, 2006, 16:39:05
HollywoodHitman: Best single thing I've ever read on the web either as a post or comment.  You have my admiration--along with that of a lot of others.

Used your comment for this post at "The Torch":

"A Canadian soldier in Afghanistan speaks"
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2006/07/canadian-soldier-in-afghanistan-speaks.html

And this is the best-written and most intelligent (with some exceptions) comment thread  I have ever come across anywhere.  Well done, if I may say so.

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Bruce Monkhouse on July 12, 2006, 16:40:43
George,
I don't think the media ignored the words of the family - they were simply the last to speak.  Don't blame them.

Alright putz, now you are peeing me off.

STOP TROLLING!!!

Gee, we are sorry that in the grief of losing our son we didn't run right out to your waiting microphone and give you the jackalish type sound bite you required.

You are pathetic......out.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Sheep Dog AT on July 12, 2006, 16:40:59
annon223 why don't be courteous and fill out your profile so that we all know where your coming from.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: SigOpDraco on July 12, 2006, 16:55:25
George,

I don't think the media ignored the words of the family - they were simply the last to speak.  Don't blame them.

Are you going to do say anything else than these simple one lined 'zingers'? You don't seem to be contributing at all to this thread or discussion. Your purpose, by all evaluation, seems to be trying to provoke a negative response from the forum.

I'm not usually the paranoid type, but I have very high suspicions as to your purpose here and your intent.

(Edit to correct some of my grammar.)
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Chris Pook on July 12, 2006, 16:55:52
Mike,

I don't get it?  Why on earth continue to blame the media for comments made to them by family and friends?  These guys cover both sides of the story - positive and negative.

As commented by others it is obvious that you don't get it.  

Try this one on for size - I am going to assume that you are NOT a troll and are actually interested.  Why do newspapers use different sizes of type for headlines?  Why do they decide to run 1, 2 or no photographs above the fold?  Why do they decide what stories go on the front page and what goes on the back page?

If it were all about the reporting then all stories would be given an equal headline, equal photo coverage and equal ranking in the scheme of things (ie stories listed chronologically as they come off the wires for example).  You don't.  You consciously make decisions to play up certain stories. Why?

You might forgive some of us for thinking that there is some reason behind the behaviour.  Most folks are inclined to think that there is some combination of a commercial desire to sell papers and a desire to set the news agenda. The latter suggests itself as either to reap the rewards of the glory-hound or else to direct public opinion.  The first is about self-interest the second is about partisan pamphleteering.  Neither has anything to do with reporting in the public interest.

Hansard is about reporting in the public interest.  CBC, CTV, G&M, Sun, Star, Post...... none of these are Hansard.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: annon223 on July 12, 2006, 17:07:54
Kirkhill,

I do get it.  The  headlines justify the story.  When friends and family members give statements like that to the press it makes for very large type indeed.  You'd have to be living in a cave to not  know that.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Teddy Ruxpin on July 12, 2006, 17:15:05
But you don't get it.  Instead of simply repeating the accusations, the press (initially) made no effort to investigate them whatsoever (see my other post).  If the media was living up to its responsibilities, it would have done so promptly and considering all aspects of the story, rather than leaping into the fray.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Chris Pook on July 12, 2006, 17:18:42
Kirkhill,

I do get it.  The  headlines justify the story.  When friends and family members give statements like that to the press it makes for very large type indeed.  You'd have to be living in a cave to not  know that.

And here was me in my cave labouring under the delusion that the story may justify the story, or perhaps that the story may be required to justify the headlines.  Silly of me not to have realized all along that it is about the Headlines, and that they justify the story.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: annon223 on July 12, 2006, 17:26:18
Funny,

Check this out and tell me who is to blame for the circus: 

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/HTMLTemplate?tf=/ctv/mar/video/new_player.html&cf=ctv/mar/ctv.cfg&hub=TopStories&video_link_high=mms://ctvbroadcast.ctv.ca/video/2006/07/11/ctvvideologger2_691kbps_2006_07_11_1152615805.wmv&video_link_low=mms://ctvbroadcast.ctv.ca/video/2006/07/11/ctvvideologger2_218kbps_2006_07_11_1152615269.wmv&clip_start=00:00:31.96&clip_end=00:05:47.34&clip_caption=Canada%20AM:%20Larry%20DeCorte,%20friend%20of%20Cpl.%20Boneca&clip_id=ctvnews.20060711.00153000-00153793-clip1&subhub=video&no_ads=&sortdate=20060710&slug=canada_soldier_boneca_060711&archive=CTVNews#ctvnews.20060711.00153000-00153793-clip1

Ya, the media - right?
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: COBRA-6 on July 12, 2006, 17:30:09
And here was me in my cave labouring under the delusion that the story may justify the story, or perhaps that the story may be required to justify the headlines.  Silly of me not to have realized all along that it is about the Headlines, and that they justify the story.

well said...

annon223, you need to get your head out of your ***!
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: c1984ml on July 12, 2006, 17:39:01
Quote
tell me who is to blame for the circus

The media.

Grief manifests in many ways.  This is a young woman whose world has been thrust upside down.  It has been said to you over and over that no one here is denying the family has a right to speak.  However what has repeatedly been pointed out to you, that you choose not to see or respect, is that there are numerous sides to this story and members of Cpl Boneca's immediate family are telling quite another. 

The media seems to have decided, as "they" so often do, to pick the angle that has the best ability to sell more papers.

I think you are just a little disappointed that most of us know the rest of the story and aren't buying what you are selling.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: annon223 on July 12, 2006, 17:42:40
COBRA-6,

You need to get your own head out of your own *** if you don't realize statements like these made by family members will make the nightly news .... ;)
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Teddy Ruxpin on July 12, 2006, 17:45:54
And how, pray tell, was this "news"?  Particularly as the media was simply reporting unsubstantiated opinion offered up by sources who were less the credible.  Where were the media's questions?
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Chris Pook on July 12, 2006, 17:48:18
COBRA-6,

You need to get your own head out of your own *** if you don't realize statements like these made by family members will make the nightly news .... ;)

I don't think any of us are unaware of that unfortunate truth.  The concern I have is that they shouldn't.

By the way they are not family members - they are, as Christie Blatchford nicely put it, "maybe in-laws".  The differentiation is not to denigrate their suffering but simply to keep matters factual.  
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: COBRA-6 on July 12, 2006, 17:48:35
as others have pointed out to you, again and again, the issue is not with the statements made by friends or relatives, but with the media sensationalizing (http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1152483906829&call_pageid=968332188492) these statements without bothering to verify them or show the other take on the issue... scavengers of human misery!
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Mike Bobbitt on July 12, 2006, 17:50:18
annon223,

You're trolling, but I'll rise to your bait if you rise to mine: Why was this (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/HTMLTemplate?tf=/ctv/mar/video/new_player.html&cf=ctv/mar/ctv.cfg&hub=TopStories&video_link_high=mms://ctvbroadcast.ctv.ca/video/2006/07/11/ctvvideologger2_691kbps_2006_07_11_1152615805.wmv&video_link_low=mms://ctvbroadcast.ctv.ca/video/2006/07/11/ctvvideologger2_218kbps_2006_07_11_1152615269.wmv&clip_start=00:00:31.96&clip_end=00:05:47.34&clip_caption=Canada%20AM:%20Larry%20DeCorte,%20friend%20of%20Cpl.%20Boneca&clip_id=ctvnews.20060711.00153000-00153793-clip1&subhub=video&no_ads=&sortdate=20060710&slug=canada_soldier_boneca_060711&archive=CTVNews#ctvnews.20060711.00153000-00153909-clip10) given 48 seconds of coverage, vs. the several minutes given to the Larry DeCorte interview?

Surely the media understands that Cpl. Boneca's own family would understand his state of mind better than his next-door-neighbour/girlfriend's father? We're talking about his flesh and blood here, and they are clearly stating that DeCorte is wrong. So why isn't their story getting as much coverage? Actually, given that it's more reliable, why isn't it getting almost exclusive coverage?

I think you need to explain that instead of simply re-stating the same "it's not the media" line.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Fishbone Jones on July 12, 2006, 17:51:52
annon223,

Your just spinning your wheels, nothing new, nothing substantive. Do us a favour, either come out with a good counter (something new) besides the drivel you've been spouting, or quit being a troll and leave us alone. It's amazing with the others that are online in your office you can't do better than you are. Of course it's common courtesy around here to fill in your profile also. Why not take a few minutes to do that?

                                                                                 -------- or --------

                                                                                 Quit wasting our time.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Signalman150 on July 12, 2006, 17:52:29
Annon, I've come to the conclusion all I'm doing here is talking to an idiot child.

My original discussion this morning was related to a post by Tony Keene.  He said something I took issue with, and I decided to challenge him on it.  He at least has some T.I. on this site, and a profile so we know who were talking to.  Unfortunately, TK has not been on today from what I can tell, and I've missed the opportunity to discuss the issues rationally.

In the meantime we've been putting up with you.  Your credentials are:

a) NO time on the site

b) NO Profile: and

c) No clue.

You have added nothing to the discussion except to reiterate the same drivel over and over.  You've apparently ignored anything that has been presented to you for rational discussion. I watched the taped interview.  Neither of the people interviewed was a member of Cpl Bonecu's family, immediate or otherwise, yet they are being interviewed as though they would have had inimate knowledge of his every thought word and deed. And their words are being used to create a whole raft of salacious inflamatory "news" reports.

Now, here's the deal.  Fill in your profile (honestly), and come back and participate in a rational discussion.  If you are indeed part of the media, ANSWER some of the questions that have been asked about how things are reported, and clarify some of your statements rather than repeating the same drivel over and over.

Otherwise, I will assume you are nothing but a full fledged troll and henceforth ignore you.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Jarnhamar on July 12, 2006, 17:54:47
Interesting interview.

Lost 50 pounds. ya that will happen when your humping int he mountains carrying lots of gear.  I lost 20+ points on a 5 week exercise in Alberta.

Said he was going for 7 days, ended up out for 22 days.
Ya that will happen when your fighting an enemy who doesn't give a crap what your plans are.

Ran out of food?  Happens in war.

If I had to find something positive from this story it would be that peoples eyes are opening up in Canada and just maybe their going to realise were fighting a war against a tough enemy trying to kill us and not some feel good humanitarian mission.

Seems his father and family are saying one thing and his girlfriend and her family are saying another?

Either way I'm willing to bet all this media attention effecting his family and girlfriend is the last thing this slain soldier would have wanted. instead of devoting their complete attention to mourning and grieving their being splashed around the news.

Hope this serves as a good lesson learned for soldiers and their families should a situation (unfortunately) arise like this int he future.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: annon223 on July 12, 2006, 17:55:45
Teddy,

Less than credible?  ......

The guy's girlfriend?  His uncle?  Aunt?  Best friend?  Wow, you're way offline.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Fishbone Jones on July 12, 2006, 17:56:44
Teddy,

Less than credible?  ......

The guy's girlfriend?  His uncle?  Aunt?  Best friend?  Wow, you're way offline.

Have you even bothered to read the last few posts?
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Teddy Ruxpin on July 12, 2006, 17:57:11
The guy's girlfriend's dad, who spouted off the most and who released e-mails??

Tsk tsk...no wonder most of us think the media has no credibility.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: COBRA-6 on July 12, 2006, 17:58:32
I've said it before and I'll say it again: scavengers of human misery!
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: aesop081 on July 12, 2006, 17:58:52
Teddy,

Less than credible?  ......

The guy's girlfriend?  His uncle?  Aunt?  Best friend?  Wow, you're way offline.
You consider the girlfriend credible ?  You think she knew what he felt about his job and wether or not he was prepared for it ?

Hell, go ask my girlfriend about what i do.......she knows i fly planes...the rest she doesnt have the first damned clue....would you consider her credible ?
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Fishbone Jones on July 12, 2006, 18:08:47
annon223,

Against my better judgement, your to be given one last chance. Fill in your profile, come up with a new and meaningful side to your arguement, and use more than one line, drive by swipes. Get the guys in the news room there to give you a hand. Your clock is ticking.


tick tock..... 10................................9.................................


Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: annon223 on July 12, 2006, 18:20:00
Hmmm, other than stiffling reporting, what's your suggestion?
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Infanteer on July 12, 2006, 18:21:09
Oh oh....the ramp's down.  Check.

How's that light looking, especially without a chute?

8....7....6....5....
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Fishbone Jones on July 12, 2006, 18:21:23
Hmmm, other than stiffling reporting, what's your suggestion?

Don't play stupid.

You've got them. Just read the posts. Do you need to be hit in the head with a rock to make you understand?

.........8..................7......................6

Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Fishbone Jones on July 12, 2006, 18:24:06
.........4......................3................2...................
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: dglad on July 12, 2006, 18:26:45
I suspect annon223 chose that moniker and left the profile quite deliberately...he doesn't want anyone to know who he or she is.  Identifying oneself would require some degree of moral courage.

Anyway, for those who are interested (and I apologize if this was posted already somewhere else and I'm being repetitive), Cpl Boneca will be home in Thunder Bay on Saturday.  There will be a very small and private ramp ceremony for his arrival.  The funeral is on Monday, July 17.  It will be a military funeral.

And if it makes anyone feel better, the media here in Thunder Bay has been giving a lot of attention to Mr. Boneca's statement.  The headline in today's Chronicle-Journal, our local newspaper, was "Fallen Soldier's Father Speaks Up".  The article begins as follows:

"A discomfiting squabble has erupted among the loved ones of Cpl. Anthony Boneca on the even of the return of the soldier's body from Afghanistan.

Boneca's father Antonio went to the lengths of issuing a public statement Tuesday to refute suggestions that the 21-year-old fallen reservist felt misled and disillusioned with the army before being killed in a furious firefight over the weekend.

Boneca "loved being in the army" and was aware of the situation he was facing, his father insisted."


The article does go onto to include a few lines about how this was in "direct contradiction of anguished sentiments" from his girlfriend and best friend.  However, the main emphasis is on Mr. Boneca's proud words about his son.

As I said before, I will carry the good thoughts and prayers of the Army.ca community to the funeral.

Dave Laderoute
LCol
CO LSSR 2001-2004
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Fishbone Jones on July 12, 2006, 18:27:59
Thanks for that Sir :salute:

On to other business at hand. 

.........aaaaaaaaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnddddddddddddddd ONE!!!

"off the ramp without a chute, JM says bbbbbbbbye-bye"

Fishin' holes closed everyone. No more trolling here!
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: SetBax on July 12, 2006, 18:34:09
And how, pray tell, was this "news"?  Particularly as the media was simply reporting unsubstantiated opinion offered up by sources who were less the credible.  Where were the media's questions?

Wow. Unsubstantiated opinion? Less than credible sources? These were people who knew him and communicated with him often. His best friend, for example. Have you guys even read the newspaper reports, or are you just reading each other's quotes? The Ottawa Citizen had  emails Tony wrote to family and friends. That's first-hand information.
And I read one story where people on this site were quoted to balance out the story.

Why are you all so down on the media?
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Springroll on July 12, 2006, 18:34:43
Funny,

Check this out and tell me who is to blame for the circus: 

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/HTMLTemplate?tf=/ctv/mar/video/new_player.html&cf=ctv/mar/ctv.cfg&hub=TopStories&video_link_high=mms://ctvbroadcast.ctv.ca/video/2006/07/11/ctvvideologger2_691kbps_2006_07_11_1152615805.wmv&video_link_low=mms://ctvbroadcast.ctv.ca/video/2006/07/11/ctvvideologger2_218kbps_2006_07_11_1152615269.wmv&clip_start=00:00:31.96&clip_end=00:05:47.34&clip_caption=Canada%20AM:%20Larry%20DeCorte,%20friend%20of%20Cpl.%20Boneca&clip_id=ctvnews.20060711.00153000-00153793-clip1&subhub=video&no_ads=&sortdate=20060710&slug=canada_soldier_boneca_060711&archive=CTVNews#ctvnews.20060711.00153000-00153793-clip1

Ya, the media - right?

I wonder if you watched any of the other pieces......hmmmm
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: aesop081 on July 12, 2006, 18:35:19
Wow. Unsubstantiated opinion? Less than credible sources? These were people who knew him and communicated with him often. His best friend, for example. Have you guys even read the newspaper reports, or are you just reading each other's quotes? The Ottawa Citizen had  emails Tony wrote to family and friends. That's first-hand information.
And I read one story where people on this site were quoted to balance out the story.

Why are you all so down on the media?

annon223......take #2
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: military granny on July 12, 2006, 18:35:40
here we go again
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Fishbone Jones on July 12, 2006, 18:37:03
Wow. Unsubstantiated opinion? Less than credible sources? These were people who knew him and communicated with him often. His best friend, for example. Have you guys even read the newspaper reports, or are you just reading each other's quotes? The Ottawa Citizen had  emails Tony wrote to family and friends. That's first-hand information.
And I read one story where people on this site were quoted to balance out the story.

Why are you all so down on the media?

Not down on all media, just trolls like annon223. Don't fall into the same trap.

Btw, still at Global TV?
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Signalman150 on July 12, 2006, 18:37:45
Geez there Annon, you are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay smarter than us.  We would never think of just going and putting in another profile if we got booted off the board. Way to go Setbax.  The true sign of a troll.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Bruce Monkhouse on July 12, 2006, 18:38:31
No he/she is not the same person , still from a media outlet though....
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Signalman150 on July 12, 2006, 18:40:52
Bruce,

Yr kidding right?  There CAN'T be two people in the world this stupid.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Bruce Monkhouse on July 12, 2006, 18:42:40
SetBax,

Please don't embarrass your profession any more than the last guy. Please read the editorial and then this thread from start to finish. When you are done that then come back with something.....
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: SetBax on July 12, 2006, 18:48:11
Thanks for the advice, bud.
You should be embarassed for shutting that guy out of the discussion. Our whole purpose for being over there in the first place is to protect free speech, to protect a free press - which includes settings like this forum. Seems you lot are only interested in hearing people that agree with you.
Lemme guess: the irony escapes you.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Bruce Monkhouse on July 12, 2006, 18:50:29
Not at all, I refer to my post here....http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,47110.msg410535.html#msg410535


So what would be wrong with this scenario?
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Springroll on July 12, 2006, 18:52:11
Why are you all so down on the media?

I'll answer this with my own opinion.

I don't approve of the media hounding the grieving families of our war heroes.

This family has lost someone very dear to them. he was not only a soldier and a friend, but also the only child of Mr and Mrs Boneca.
Does the media have any respect for them during this time?
Why can they not leave them alone, and leave this topic alone, to allow this family to grieve their sudden and very tragic loss?
Do they not have a heart? Compassion? Empathy?
Would they appreciate the same behaviour on them, that they are exhibiting towards these grieving families?

Doubt it.








Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: SetBax on July 12, 2006, 18:52:23
Why couldn't this wait? Is that the post you're talking about?
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Bruce Monkhouse on July 12, 2006, 18:53:19
YES, that one

and also "Mr. Free Press"....my name is right there....where is yours and Mr. Anonn's?
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Teddy Ruxpin on July 12, 2006, 18:53:35
Quote
Wow. Unsubstantiated opinion? Less than credible sources? These were people who knew him and communicated with him often. His best friend, for example. Have you guys even read the newspaper reports, or are you just reading each other's quotes? The Ottawa Citizen had  emails Tony wrote to family and friends. That's first-hand information.

Since Global is posting, perhaps a response is in order.  SetBax obviously hasn't bothered at all to read the criticisms of the media contained within this thread or the original editorial.  The fact that some "close" to the family made statements is one thing.  The fact (and it is a fact) that the vast majority of the media picked them up and didn't bother to provide any background information or check on their veracity is quite another.  Read my original questions on this thread.

The media appears to be too lazy or indifferent to the facts to do proper research and/or background reading prior to launching an ill-timed assault designed to generate additional controversy.  Simply because a girlfriend's father launches into a diatribe (or several diatribes) on national TV doesn't make him correct and certainly doesn't provide all the facts.  Yet, despite the suspect source, the media immediately assumed that the accusations were indicative of greater problems in theatre, with reservists, and with Army training in general.  It forced the immediate family to issue a statement, something which I suspect they were loathe to do in the midst of their grief.  

FYI, SetBax, I've followed this controversy quite closely and have read/watched much of what's come out.  I was literally shouting at the TV the first night, an indication of how offended I was at how the media has covered this death.

TR, out.





Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Sheep Dog AT on July 12, 2006, 18:54:22
I see you have still not filled out your profile.  This is a private forum owned by one person who can do whatever the hell he wants.  I'm not suggesting he shut this clown down but he can do whatever he wants because it is a PRIVATE forum.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: probum non poenitet on July 12, 2006, 18:57:08
Thanks for the advice, bud.
You should be embarassed for shutting that guy out of the discussion. Our whole purpose for being over there in the first place is to protect free speech, to protect a free press - which includes settings like this forum. Seems you lot are only interested in hearing people that agree with you.
Lemme guess: the irony escapes you.


The main thrust of our argument is that the media jump to conclusions hastily without checking facts.

It's been stated many times in this thread that we support free speech. I guess you were in too much of a hurry to check your facts.

Lots of irony in that.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Fishbone Jones on July 12, 2006, 19:01:36
Thanks for the advice, bud.
You should be embarassed for shutting that guy out of the discussion. Our whole purpose for being over there in the first place is to protect free speech, to protect a free press - which includes settings like this forum. Seems you lot are only interested in hearing people that agree with you.
Lemme guess: the irony escapes you.


Don't be patronizing and two faced. It's unbecoming and childish.

annon223 got banned for being a troll. It wasn't discussing nor being outspoken and controversial. It was being a smartmouth pest. It was treated the way it was acting, like a petulant child sent to it's room.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: SetBax on July 12, 2006, 19:03:47
BM: This couldn't wait because our media is an institution that thrives on immediacy. Media products are also consumer products, bought and sold, a fact that seems to have many of you in a tizzy.
I think the majority of the public really cares when a young soldier like Cpl. Boneca dies in the line of duty. Because in a way, he died for all of us. That's really sad.
That also makes his life and death subject of public discussion and hence subject to immediate commentary by the media. People want to know that stuff. And for the most part, I think the families and friends want people to know. Cpl Boneca was a popular young man, generous, athletic and kind-hearted.
You read it in the National Post and I suspect if you went to the local Tim Horton's in TBay you would have learned it there too.
Many of the media stories pay tribute to his life. The fact that the media reported some of his doubts about the mission seems to upset many of you. Get over it.  :cdn: :cdn: :cdn: :cdn: :cdn: :cdn: :cdn:
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Sheep Dog AT on July 12, 2006, 19:06:32
Were not upset that the media doubted the mission, we are upset that they ran with comments from his girlfriends dad vice his soldier buddies and immediate family (ie father, mother etc.)
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Teddy Ruxpin on July 12, 2006, 19:07:44
And they ran with the comments because they were exactly what the media was after - controversial and muck-raking.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Bruce Monkhouse on July 12, 2006, 19:08:49
Quote,
The fact that the media reported some of his doubts about the mission seems to upset many of you. Get over it.

You condescending little stooge. [ Sorry Curly, Larry and Moe] Now that some of his section mates and HIS OWN FATHER have said otherwise you still are too arrogant to get the picture. This, if true, would still have been news two days later and spared his family, friends and all of Canada a lot of grief. I guess its too much for you though to understand comradeship at its highest though......I pity you.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: COBRA-6 on July 12, 2006, 19:10:09
You and annon just don't get it... it is the issue of sensationalizing the issue, not reporting it, that we have a problem with. Whoever gives the juiciest soundbite gets the airtime or headline, to hell with being balanced and professional, checking facts or investigating the issue would take time and effort, there's ratings to be had eh! Well done!

Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: probum non poenitet on July 12, 2006, 19:14:06
BM: This couldn't wait because our media is an institution that thrives on immediacy. Media products are also consumer products, bought and sold, a fact that seems to have many of you in a tizzy.
I think the majority of the public really cares when a young soldier like Cpl. Boneca dies in the line of duty. Because in a way, he died for all of us. That's really sad.
That also makes his life and death subject of public discussion and hence subject to immediate commentary by the media. People want to know that stuff. And for the most part, I think the families and friends want people to know. Cpl Boneca was a popular young man, generous, athletic and kind-hearted.
You read it in the National Post and I suspect if you went to the local Tim Horton's in TBay you would have learned it there too.
Many of the media stories pay tribute to his life. The fact that the media reported some of his doubts about the mission seems to upset many of you. Get over it.  :cdn: :cdn: :cdn: :cdn: :cdn: :cdn: :cdn:


Thrives on immediacy. Agreed. Maybe once upon a time the media thrived on accuracy. That's one problem.

Media are also consumer products. OK, fine. Also watchdogs of democracy, fine. But when ratings become more important, or dare I say FAR more important than ethics or accuracy, we're in trouble. Has me in a tizzy, yes it does. Pity it doesn't seem to faze you.

The fact that the media reported that he was not trained (factually wrong) not aware that he was not peacekeeping (factually wrong) and used language like 'brushed off' when facts were presented is an old story.
Irresponsible crap like that over time has grave repercussions both for national institutions and individuals.
"Hey, we got our facts totally wrong, caused grievous pain to his parents, besmirched the CF's training, and cast doubts on what he stood for. Get over it."
Nice attitude.

Like I have said before, you have an important role to play keeping public institutions in check.
But you sound like a cowboy selling vacuum cleaners. It's a product. Right, wrong, get over it.
Glad you're not a doctor.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Fishbone Jones on July 12, 2006, 19:14:12
Bruce,

Don't get to upset. The attitude they portray is to be expected of people who's only loyalty is to themselves and their paycheck. They've never known what it's truly like to serve anything but themselves and their wallet.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: SetBax on July 12, 2006, 19:17:00
Quote,
The fact that the media reported some of his doubts about the mission seems to upset many of you. Get over it.

You condescending little stooge. [ Sorry Curly, Larry and Moe] Now that some of his section mates and HIS OWN FATHER have said otherwise you still are too arrogant to get the picture. This, if true, would still have been news two days later and spared his family, friends and all of Canada a lot of grief. I guess its too much for you though to understand comradeship at its highest though......I pity you.

Keep your pity, bud. And oooh, easy on the name-calling. That stuff hurts.
Read the lad's emails. They're out there, easy to get. In his own words.
This is how it stands: you've got competing versions of Cpl. Boneca's frame of mind. Both of them are out there - Cpl. Boneca's words and those of his father. Can't shut either of them down, like you did to that anon fella ...
Anyway, been a pleasure chatting with you guys. Can you please ban me now? I want to know what it feels like to live under a totalitarian regime, where only one opinion - the dominant opinion - is allowed to survive.
Please? Pretty please?
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Signalman150 on July 12, 2006, 19:18:53
Probum,

Well said sir.  I was trying to cobble something together in a similar vein, and couldn't do it.

Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Bruce Monkhouse on July 12, 2006, 19:19:52
Quote,
This is how it stands: you've got competing versions of Cpl. Boneca's frame of mind. Both of them are out there - Cpl. Boneca's words and those of his father

His words said no such thing...........they would be nothing worse than I would say after a long day at work with 20 minutes left to go,....only his day is 6 months.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Chris Pook on July 12, 2006, 19:21:55
Quote
Slain soldier felt `misled'
Jul. 10, 2006. 11:07 AM  Toronto Star Headline - Statement - presented as fact.  No indication of opinion.

An honest headline - and one that could have been printed in larger typeface catching more eyes - would have been "Misled?" with as sub-heading "Slain Soldier's Girlfriend's Father Believes That Cpl. Boneca Felt Misled".

That would have been a fair presentation of the story.

Mr. Decorte has a right to his opinion, has a right to have his voice heard and the press surely has a right to report Mr. Decorte's opinion.  But opinion is not fact, no matter how many people repeat it.


Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Fishbone Jones on July 12, 2006, 19:22:27
.
Anyway, been a pleasure chatting with you guys. Can you please ban me now? I want to know what it feels like to live under a totalitarian regime, where only one opinion - the dominant opinion - is allowed to survive.
Please? Pretty please?


Sorry. No need. You actually put forth some points you believed in. Discussion took place, no one came off the winner or loser, but you didn't resort to the fishing rod like annon did. You'll have to get your kicks somewhere else, I guess.


And with that we'll put the temp lock on 'er till people cool off.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Fishbone Jones on July 12, 2006, 20:09:37
We will be reopening this thread at 19:30 EDT. Read and heed the following rules. No mercy will be shown to contravenors, no steps on the ladder, straight to BAN.

No name calling or pedigree pouncing. Back your argument with facts, and keep it civil. No one line shots and no drive by swipes. If you can't contribute in a civilized manner, stay clear of the thread. If you feel it's getting to you, back off and take a breather. If you can't follow these simple rules, expect your post to disappear. Continue in that vein, and the same fate awaits you. We welcome all contributors, but don't get hung up and spin your wheels, harping on the same point. The thread and discussion has to progress. When it no longer does, it gets locked for good.

Remember why we're here folks. We lost one of our own. Let's not debase his memory with petty arguments
.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Dogstar on July 12, 2006, 23:00:12
I was asked by the media about Cpl. Boneca. When I told the army i talked they were pissed. A captain in fact removed my manhood. I am not a troll, but after years on this board my profile is now new. I am in a lot of trouble because of this. That is BS. Last year we were told by a major that we can talk to the media if we don't talk about mission details. We could say "yes army food sucks". Now we cant? I was just asked about the current situation. Are soldiers under a gag order as we fight for freedom in A-Stan. Come on O'Connor, how is the truth to get out if we leave it to the knobs in public affairs in Ottawa. All you guys with brass on your shoulders know nothing about this topic. This subject is dangerous. You can be sure this board is being watched by the army and the media too. Yet, we give the media crap because they get the story wrong? How the hell can they get it right if the army kicks us soldiers in the junk if we talk to the media? Canada has a lot to learn about growing a positive war effort in its population. Blame the army as much as you blame the media.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Fishbone Jones on July 12, 2006, 23:02:08
To my knowledge the policy has not changed. You are allowed to talk to the media about what you know, as long as you stay within your lanes. I've done plenty of talking to them, both in the paper and on electronic means. I've never been censored or taken to task. Same as anything else, if you start talking trash, someones going to hand you a bag and pointy stick. I'm sorry if you're in dutch with your bosses, but I certainly don't think it's as dire and Orwellian as you put it out to be.

As well, this is the second time you've put this up. It was taken down by the Mods the first time because of the inflammatory nature of your prose. Next time just leave things be. We'll leave this one up, but you better drop the vitrol and slagging in anything you post following. Just settle down and think before you post.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Teddy Ruxpin on July 12, 2006, 23:03:52
Recceguy:  you've quoted the policy correctly.

Edited to correct abysmal English.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Remius on July 12, 2006, 23:55:43
Setbax(or any other media types reading):  Quick question for you that I think is legitimate.

Using your inquisitive reporting skills and fact checking skills, why not check this out.

Most people on this board are either serving members or former members.  Now I know where I work and other CF locations, most people are not happy with the way the media has handled this.

Why not look into why so many people are pissed off?  We are not a bunch of maniac anti-press lunatics.  But we are a tight knit community that grieves whe one of our own is killed.  In combat or otherwise.  If so many people are angry with the media there is a reason.  Try figuring it out.  People here have tried to explain it but it doesen't seem to sink in.

No one here is against freedom of the press. We'd just like some accountability.

We hold certain values and things as sacred.  Maybe the media could try and respect that.


Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: big bad john (John Hill) on July 13, 2006, 00:10:06
After getting home from work I read through the trolling, slagging and arrogance from one of the posters, now banned, I was amazed at the boldness of some of our media outlets.  Please remember that we have lost a brother in arms.  Keep the thread going strong, but please, please have a thought and a prayer tonight for Cpl. Boneca, his family, loved ones and let us not forget his comrades still in the field.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Mortar guy on July 13, 2006, 00:27:47
I think it's plain for all to see what the problem is and I don't think all journalists are to blame. You get people like Christie Blatchford, Matthew Fisher and Graeme Smith who actually have the parts to travel to Kandahar and see for themselves what is happening. They are almost unanimously in support of what we are doing over here and the usually provide excellent insights into the lives of our troops. What's more, all of the reporters over here seem to be emphatically refuting claims that morale is low or that troops are being "misled".

On the other side of the coin we seem to have a herd of journalists (mostly from the Star) like Haroon Siddiqui, Linda McQuaig et al who seem to be recurring targets of Ruxted Editorials. These people are either too scared or too complacent to actually travel to Kandahar to learn something about that which they write. Yet these same people offer opinions and write stories by the boatload with a "damn the torpedoes" approach to facts. Why is it that those who've "been there/done that" seem to have opinions so vastly different from those who can't remove their pimpled arses from their swivel chairs in Toronto? Could it be because the latter aren't reporting on news but rather are pushing an agenda? Could it be that they aren't interested in facts as those would only get in the way of a good editorial? I don't know, but it certainly seems that way.

I think the shameful actions of the handful of journalists who have exploited second-hand stories and rumours to push their agenda is just another, albeit more dramatic, example of the battle between facts and agenda. And don't tell me that the words of Boneca's girlfriend's father aren't second-hand rumours. If any of the journalists who wrote the sensationalist pieces about Boneca being misled had actually bothered to double check their story with people IN AFGHANISTAN they would have had a much more balanced piece. Thankfully, at the end of the day, this all just represents another huge dent in the credibility of the Star.

MG
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Ex-fusilier on July 13, 2006, 00:30:42
One another point I would make.  As a soldier due to deploy within the next two weeks, the actions of the media on this matter would certainly make me think twice about wanting to talk to them in the near future.  Now we have seen some excellent reporting come out of theatre, namely Christie, and I'd hate to see that suffer from this.  The Canadian public does, to an extent, deserve to know what's going on in theatre with the troops.
I'd like to see some of the media types on here try and better their collective image and give us good reason to communicate with them in the future.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Roy Harding on July 13, 2006, 00:33:29
After getting home from work I read through the trolling, slagging and arrogance from one of the posters, now banned, I was amazed at the boldness of some of our media outlets.  Please remember that we have lost a brother in arms.  Keep the thread going strong, but please, please have a thought and a prayer tonight for Cpl. Boneca, his family, loved ones and let us not forget his comrades still in the field.

Bless you, John, for pointing out what's important.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Nerf herder on July 13, 2006, 00:40:55
After much searching and personal debating as to weather or not I'd wade into the debacle raised by some of the reporters here who seem to think that this is a totalitarian website....a reminder, and yes I'm talking to you ( for the one's who are not of this view, please take this time to have a swig of tea or beer ):

This is a personal website owned and operated by Mike Bobbitt, it is in no way shape or form sponsored by the CF....that being said,

....he makes the rules, we implement them.

We will not stifle any posts or remarks made by anyone unless it's derogatory or inflammatory in nature, which has been the case today.

You have come here to get a few quotes here and there, mostly taken completely out of context when you do write up your articles, usually with an incomplete picture and somewhat slant depending on what news agency you work for. Don't think that the membership of this site hasn't seen it on Global, CTV and the like.

Free speech is what we as Soldiers, Airmen, and Sailors have fought and died for....don't come here, on your soapbox, waving the flag that our comrades have died for whilst spitting in our faces and shyting on the military, a subject that unless you have served within is something that you know nothing about.

You don't like it, leave.



Again, this is only directed to a select few who have come here to stir up the shyte storm.

To the others who come here to gather a more complete and balanced perspective of the facts....welcome.



A reminder to all service pers here:

The official policy in regards to speaking to the media:

Quote
Openness, and Transparency
   

CF members and DND employees face significant challenges in their efforts to inform the public and ensure the public's right to know, while being fully aware and respectful of legal restrictions on releasing detailed information about:

    * individuals (restricted by the Privacy Act);

    * sensitive elements of military operations (restricted by the National Defence Act and the Official Secrets Act); and

    * issues before the courts (which is restricted by the Canada Evidence Act and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms).

While these restrictions place legal limits on the ability of the CF and DND to live up to demands for complete openness, every effort should be made to be as open and transparent as possible within the law.

To this end, CF members and DND employees at all levels shall manage their programs and activities in a manner that:

    * maximizes public and media accessibility to information regarding DND and CF policies, programs, services, operations and initiatives in a timely manner and within the law;

    * minimizes the need for the public or media to resort to the Access to Information Act as a means of obtaining information from DND or the CF; and

    * conforms to both the letter and the spirit of the Access to Information Act.

Accountability
   

Regardless of rank or level, CF members and DND employees are accountable to their chain of command for the accuracy and currency of the information they make available to the public.




To that end....keep it to what you know and don't speculate.

Now for the QR&Os on the subject.





Quote
19.14 – IMPROPER COMMENTS
        

19.14 – COMMENTAIRES DÉPLACÉS

(1) No officer or non-commissioned member shall make remarks or pass criticism tending to bring a superior into contempt, except as may be necessary for the proper presentation of a grievance under Chapter 7 (Grievances). (15 June 2000)
        

(1) Aucun officier ou militaire du rang ne doit prononcer des remarques ou des critiques tendant à discréditer un supérieur, sauf dans la mesure nécessaire pour présenter convenablement un grief aux termes du chapitre 7 (Griefs). (15 juin 2000)

(2) No officer or non-commissioned member shall do or say anything that:
        

(2) Aucun officier ou militaire du rang ne doit faire ni ne doit dire quoi que ce soit qui :
     

(a) if seen or heard by any member of the public, might reflect discredit on the Canadian Forces or on any of its members; or
             

a) vu ou entendu par un membre du public, pourrait jeter le discrédit sur les Forces canadiennes ou sur l’un de ses membres;
     

(b) if seen by, heard by or reported to those under him, might discourage them or render them dissatisfied with their condition or the duties on which they are employed.



19.36 – DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION OR OPINION
        

19.36 – DIVULGATION DE RENSEIGNEMENT OU D’OPINION

(1) For the purposes of this article, the adjective "military" shall be construed as relating not only to the Canadian Forces but also to the armed forces of any country.
        

(1) Aux fins du présent article, l’adjectif «militaire» doit s’interpréter comme visant non seulement les Forces canadiennes mais aussi les forces armées de tout autre pays.

(2) Subject to article 19.375 (Communications to News Agencies), no officer or non-commissioned member shall without permission obtained under article 19.37 (Permission to Communicate Information):
        

(2) Sous réserve de l’article 19.375 (Communications à des agences de nouvelles), aucun officier ou militaire du rang ne doit, s’il n’en a d’abord obtenu la permission aux termes de l’article 19.37 (Permission de communiquer des renseignements) :
     

(a) publish in any form whatever or communicate directly or indirectly or otherwise disclose to an unauthorized person official information or the contents of an unpublished or classified official document or the contents thereof;
             

a) publier sous quelque forme que ce soit, communiquer directement ou indirectement ou autrement divulguer à une personne non autorisée des renseignements officiels ou le contenu d’un document officiel inédit ou classifié;
     

(b) use that information or document for a private purpose;
             

b) utiliser ce renseignement ou ce document à ses fins particulières;
     

(c) publish in any form whatever any military information or the member’s views on any military subject to unauthorized persons;
             

c) publier sous quelque forme que ce soit tout renseignement de caractère militaire ou communiquer ses opinions sur un sujet militaire à des personnes non autorisées à recevoir ce renseignement ou ces opinions;
     

(d) deliver publicly, or record for public delivery, either directly or through the medium of radio or television, a lecture, discourse or answers to questions relating to a military subject;
             

d) prononcer en public ou enregistrer pour être prononcés en public, soit directement, soit par le truchement de la radio ou de la télévision, une conférence, un discours ou des réponses à des questions portant sur un sujet militaire;
     

(e) prepare a paper or write a script on any military subject for delivery or transmission to the public;
             

e) préparer un document ou rédiger un texte sur un sujet militaire pour être communiqué au public de vive voix ou autrement;
     

(f) publish the member’s opinions on any military question that is under consideration by superior authorities;
             

f) publier ses opinions sur une question militaire faisant l’objet d’une étude de la part des autorités supérieures;
     

(g) take part in public in a discussion relating to orders, regulations or instructions issued by the member’s superiors;
             

g) participer publiquement à une discussion portant sur des ordres, règlements ou directives émanant de ses supérieurs;
     

(h) disclose to an unauthorized person, without the authority of the department, agency or other body concerned, any information acquired in an official capacity while seconded, attached or loaned to that department, agency or other body;
             

h) divulguer à une personne non autorisée à le recevoir, sans l’autorisation préalable du ministère, de l’organisme ou de tout autre corps intéressé, un renseignement obtenu dans l’exercice de ses fonctions officielles alors qu’il est détaché, affecté ou prêté à ce ministère, cet organisme ou ce corps;
     

(i) furnish to any person, not otherwise authorized to receive them, official reports, correspondence or other documents, or copies thereof; or
             

i) fournir à toute personne non autorisée à les recevoir des rapports, de la correspondance ou d’autres documents officiels ou des copies de ceux-ci;
     

(j) publish in writing or deliver any lecture, address or broadcast in any dealing with a subject of a controversial nature affecting other departments of the public service or pertaining to public policy.
             

j) publier par écrit, prononcer un discours ou participer à une émission radiodiffusée ou télévisée traitant de quelque façon que ce soit de sujets de nature controversable, relatifs à d’autres ministères de la fonction publique ou à des questions de politiques gouvernementales.

(3) This article does not apply to a writing, lecture, address or broadcast confined exclusively to members of the Canadian Forces.
        

(3) Le présent article ne s’applique pas à un écrit, un discours ou une émission radiodiffusée ou télévisée destiné exclusivement à des militaires des Forces canadiennes.

(M)(25 May 2000 effective 15 June 2000)
        

(M)(25 mai 2000 en vigueur le 15 juin 2000)

19.37 – PERMISSION TO COMMUNICATE INFORMATION
        

19.37 – PERMISSION DE COMMUNIQUER DES RENSEIGNEMENTS

(1) Permission for the purposes of article 19.36 (Disclosure of Information or Opinion) may be granted by the Chief of the Defence Staff or such other authority as he may designate.
        

(1) La permission aux fins de l’article 19.36 (Divulgation de renseignement ou d’opinion) peut être accordée par le chef d’état-major de la défense ou toute autre autorité qu’il peut désigner à cette fin.

(2) Permission given under paragraph (1):
        

(2) Toute permission accordée en vertu de l’alinéa (1) :
     

(a) does not have the effect of endorsing anything said or done by the person to whom it is given;
             

a) ne comporte pas l’approbation de ce qui a été dit ou fait par la personne à qui s’adresse cette permission;
     

(b) may not be referred to in any way; and
             

b) ne doit pas être mentionnée, de quelque façon que ce soit;
     

(c) is given on the basis that no statement implying endorsement on behalf of the Crown will be included in what is said or done.
             

c) est accordée sous réserve qu’aucune déclaration donnant à entendre qu’il y a eu approbation au nom de l’État ne sera incluse dans ce qui est dit ou fait.

(M)
        

(M)

19.375 – COMMUNICATIONS TO NEWS AGENCIES
        

19.375 – COMMUNICATIONS À DES AGENCES DE NOUVELLES

(1) Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), any communication concerning or affecting the Canadian Forces or any part thereof that it may be considered desirable to make to the press or any other agencies concerned with the dissemination of news or opinions will be made by the Minister or an officer or official designated by the Minister.
        

(1) Sous réserve des alinéas (2) et (3), toute communication touchant ou intéressant les Forces canadiennes ou une partie de celles-ci qu’il pourrait être jugé souhaitable de faire à la presse ou à d’autres organes de diffusion de nouvelles ou d’opinions doit émaner du ministre ou d’un officier ou fonctionnaire désigné par le ministre.

(2) An officer commanding a command, formation, base, unit or element may make communications to the press or other news agencies when they concern or affect only the command, formation, base, unit or element under the officer’s command and do not involve enunciation, defence or criticism, expressed or implied, of service, departmental or government policy.
        

(2) Un officier commandant un commandement, une formation, une base, une unité ou un élément peut transmettre des communications à la presse ou à d’autres agences de nouvelles lorsqu’elles ne touchent ou n’intéressent que le commandement, la formation, la base, l’unité ou l’élément sous son commandement, et ne comportent pas d’énoncé, de défense ou de critique, exprimés ou sous-entendus, de la politique des Forces canadiennes, du ministère ou du gouvernement.

(3) As it is desirable that the public should be acquainted with conditions of life in the service and that local interest be encouraged, an officer commanding a command, formation, base, unit or element is authorized at the officer’s discretion to invite local representatives of the press and other news agencies to visit the command formation, base, unit or element under the officer’s command and to furnish to them, subject to paragraph (2), such information as the officer may consider suitable for the purpose.

Regards
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: calgarytanks on July 13, 2006, 00:47:22
Why not look into why so many people are pissed off?  We are not a bunch of maniac anti-press lunatics.  But we are a tight knit community that grieves whe one of our own is killed. 

i have to agree with your plea to th e media to "check this out"; well-done. But "we" are not necessarily tight knit, as that implies *we* are some way a small minority. There are wide gulfs on ocasion between regulars & reserves, infantry & armoured, etc. (except when it counts - on the battlefield) and as for grief, few in western Canada had the honor of serving or even meeting the cpl. Boneca. we don't act hostile to bad press reports because we are grief stricken or some small club rallying around a comrade. we object most strongly because it is plain wrong to quote a shattered little girl in *her* moment of grief as if it is - forgive me - of national importance. it isn't.  let the families and friends have their private moments of reflection, let the nation know that a soldier died doing his duty, let his family express remorse or pride - and if there are doubts, then air them as a sober second thought, perhaps after the honoured fallen have at least been buried. in short - at least find out if there is some system failure before plastering headlines with accusations by an immature and emotionally devastated little girl saying that there is. once you start to say something in the press, unfortunately people may start to believe it - our soldiers included
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: WB on July 13, 2006, 02:13:49
SetBax,

Have you ever had a rough day at work? Gone home and vented to your husband or wife? Don't try and tell me you've never had any complaints. Everyone bitches. Now take that private conversation and put it on national TV. Those are your words, there's no denying that. But is it an accurate representation of how you feel about your job? Of course not, because it's totally out of context. There's no reporting of all the other days when you go home with the satisfaction of a job well done. No one takes into consideration to the fact that you were just trying to blow off steam. All the media knows is that they just want the juiciest bits of info that have the most controversy and will sell the best on newstands.

And so the media has sacrificed the integrity of what is normally a stand-up organization in order to make a quick buck, at your expense.

Do you think this is what Cpl Boneca would have wanted? A professional soldier killed on his second tour to Afghanistan? Is your paycheck worth it?
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Thucydides on July 13, 2006, 03:25:31
I think it's plain for all to see what the problem is and I don't think all journalists are to blame. You get people like Christie Blatchford, Matthew Fisher and Graeme Smith who actually have the parts to travel to Kandahar and see for themselves what is happening. They are almost unanimously in support of what we are doing over here and the usually provide excellent insights into the lives of our troops. What's more, all of the reporters over here seem to be emphatically refuting claims that morale is low or that troops are being "misled".

On the other side of the coin we seem to have a herd of journalists (mostly from the Star) like Haroon Siddiqui, Linda McQuaig et al who seem to be recurring targets of Ruxted Editorials. These people are either too scared or too complacent to actually travel to Kandahar to learn something about that which they write. Yet these same people offer opinions and write stories by the boatload with a "damn the torpedoes" approach to facts.

If there is to be a positive outcome to this entire shameful episode it is the media might pay more attention to the details, even if by accident. Anyone who actually follows up on the suggestion that soldiers are "misled" or "unprepared" for the mission will get a very sudden and rude reality check. Now I suspect that there will be very little follow up by the worst offenders of sensationalizing. The sort of Editorial staff which puts up the "He was 'misled'" : http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/News/National/2006/07/11/1678530-sun.html headline in abnormally large type above the fold and highlighted with a "box" is hardly likely to dispatch a reporter to follow up and find out if any of this is true or not.

On the other hand, there are a small stable of really dedicated reporters, and the "second team" of the Blogosphere is gaining readership and credibility in leaps and bounds through the ability to rapidly fact check and publish. Old media may still have more impact for now, but the constant self inflicted erosion of their credibility will kill them in the end.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: beenthere on July 13, 2006, 07:30:21
I'm doubtful if any change will come. They follow each new thing that pops up and pay little attention to past events which means that what happened three days ago is history rather than news.
From my experience there are lots of errors in reporting any event. I've been involved in a number of situations over the years where the news story that described the event had a vast difference in detail from what actually happened. Articles are put together so quickly and with such sketchy details that the story that is published sometimes has little similarity to the actual event. Reporters are prone to taking anyone's words at face value and using them for material.
 Media people who become quite involved in military  matters and spend time with the military have more insight and report differently than their counterparts who don't get involved. Sometimes we forget that our world is a whole lot different than that of civilians and expect others to see us in the same light as we do. The average person would get lost listening to us in a conversation because we use so many acronyms and terms that we have a language of our own. The same goes for our relationships with each other where we bounce all over the world together and apart from each other sharing postings, courses and deployments as room/tent mates and then have periods of years where we never have contact but can get together years later and start all over again. People who have never lived this sort of life are baffled at the way we live and don't understand it. The average media person takes what they see and hear and put it into print and if they are told that someone has referred to someplace as Hell they will look  at that statement as being very strong. One of us could refer to a three year posting in Gagetown as Hell and to us it could mean too much time in the training area where as to someone unfamiliar with military life listening to the conversation it could come across as being three years of absolute endless agony.
It doesn't take much for media person who hasn't lived even a few days with us to get the details wrong or to misunderstand a statement.



Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Capt. Happy on July 13, 2006, 08:26:00
Thanks for the advice, bud.
You should be embarassed for shutting that guy out of the discussion. Our whole purpose for being over there in the first place is to protect free speech, to protect a free press - which includes settings like this forum. Seems you lot are only interested in hearing people that agree with you.

Ummmmmm.....bud......I think you have that backwards.......it's guys / girls past and present like me and the rest the CF members on this board who continuously go / have gone to these far flung places in the world to ensure YOU have the right to practise free speech and opinions, not the other way around.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: cplcaldwell on July 13, 2006, 10:24:25
I have lurked this thread for the last couple of days and I think now I should talk.

Let's leave Mr DeCorte out of it. He seems like and honest bloke who was asked an honest question. That his answer was not spot on with our particular brand of 'code of honour' so what? To us he may seems to be spouting off , but let's take it from whence it comes, I doubt he ever attended a PAffO's briefing.

And let's leave the press out of it. This is what they do. I'll bet the reporter was sent to T'Bay to get a story. I'll bet he got a lot of polite "No Comments" and a few "$#%^ Off" 's. But the Press's job is to report the news, the minute they start to worry about whether it offends one group of society or another is the minute they start down the slope to Pravda. The only thing that matters in this case is respect of Cpl Boneca's life and work and repsect of the family's wishes. I didn't read anywhere that Cpl Boneca was a bag of hammers, I read he was a fine young guy who had some misgvings, but he soldiered on.

Now I'll give you a little perspective.

It will be three years in September since my 18 year old son and his 17 year old girlfriend where killed in a car accident near Peterborough Ontario. They were good kids, they went for a drive. The road was wet and he lost control of the car and were instantly killed. I have lived this. Sadly so to have some of you. The officer at the door. The wake, (the open casket) and yes, the press at the door the next morning asking me for a comment. The front page story in the Examiner and the Era showing my little Mazda pounded to crap. The report on cbc. And yes I sent the reporters packing with a box of vitriole even the nastiet MCpl couldn't manage. But reporting the facts is what these people do, they can't in most instances parse out the truth. Sound shitty? it's tough on everyone.

Now in case you think I am defending the press, send me a message and I tell you a little more, but we have to recognise that this is what they do. It may seem distateful and disrespectful, but then again, if taken to the n'th degree we are still in the property destruction and personal injury business, our motives are the most noble in the world, but we're not social workers. Taken to the n'th degree they are in the news business and when a fine young man dies, its news,  their motives are the most noble in the world, but they're not advertisng copy writers.

Press on.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Bruce Monkhouse on July 13, 2006, 10:31:28
Sorry for your loss but this is just stupid,

Quote,
But reporting the facts is what these people do, they can't in most instances parse out the truth.

The whole reason of "free press" is to ensure the general public has the truth, anything else is just wrong. Some people may be happy getting their news from the National Inquirer/ News Of the World but I expect something more....
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: GAP on July 13, 2006, 10:32:59
I have lurked this thread for the last couple of days and I think now I should talk.
. Taken to the n'th degree they are in the news business and when a fine young man dies, its news,  their motives are the most noble in the world, but they're not advertising copy writers.

I know where your sentiments come from, but if you read through the thread, you would have noticed that most everybody was not slamming the press for reporting the comments, but for NOT following through. A few simple phone calls would have corrected much of the misleading hysteria they created, therefore they, as professionals, and they are, did NOT do their job. They went with the first trick pony they could find, did not substantiate it, sensationalized it, and then, had the gall to be offended when questioned about their ethics.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: cplcaldwell on July 13, 2006, 10:49:11
Bruce Monkhouse- Perhaps my grammar was confusing, "parsing out the truth" perhaps should have read "parsing though all the facts to get the truth". NEWS is NEWS, it is facts as they appear at that moment. The truth may be a little more escoteric and involve and the related details. Reporters; they do not have the luxury of getting all the jots and tittles, the reporter had the story and reported it.

Perhaps there is a difference between a reporter who is tied to a deadline and a journalist that has the time to assemble all the facts outside of the constraints of 'news' and document the whole thing.

GAP- But the press did follow though. We got Mr. A. Boneca's input yesterday. And reference my point above, of course they went with the first trick pony; that's the news.

News is news and it is messy, but without doing the news the way they do it, we would still be waiting for the Titanic story.

Thank you both for your insightful comments.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: George Wallace on July 13, 2006, 10:58:18
You're an Idiot!

http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,47109.msg409523.html#msg409523

Of course you are not an Idiot, but that is an example of what we are talking about.  The media has garnered your attention with bold, misleading titles on the front pages, and then printed hastily gathered, and perhaps inaccurate, facts on the front pages.  Later when the more accurate facts are found and presented, they have hiddent them away in the back pages.  This is what we are dealing with and talking about.  Professionalism.  Accountability.  Funny how we have to be professional and accountable for our actions here, but the media do not have to uphold the same ethical, nor moral values.  Have you seen any appologies from them for their misleading headlines or stories?  Have you seen any retractions of these false and misleading stories or misconceptions?  No.  They are acting 'above' the rights that they claim are so necessary in our society, and then slapping us in the faces with it.   
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: GAP on July 13, 2006, 11:01:31
GAP- But the press did follow though. We got Mr. A. Boneca's input yesterday. And reference my point above, of course they went with the first trick pony; that's the news.
News is news and it is messy, but without doing the news the way they do it, we would still be waiting for the Titanic story.

As thoughtful as it would have been to get Mr. Boneca's input, that was not the time and place, and that is not the issue. My comments were directed at the disinformation the media spun about inadequate training, being lied to about the mission, and a whole lot of other stuff that was FACTUALLY wrong, and has to this day, not been corrected.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Teddy Ruxpin on July 13, 2006, 11:10:42
Quote
My comments were directed at the disinformation the media spun about inadequate training, being lied to about the mission, and a whole lot of other stuff that was FACTUALLY wrong, and has to this day, not been corrected.

As were mine.  Unfortunately, some have chosen to ignore the editorial and the comments and to concentrate on their view that our opinions constitute an "attack" on the press.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: cplcaldwell on July 13, 2006, 12:44:34
George Wallace: I may be an idiot (LOL). Unfortunately, whether I am an idiot or not, there are a lot of idiots out there. They will read the headlines and jump right to the end of the process, generating a furor. (Some of which I respectfully submit is due to our anticipation of their jumping off). I doubt it is the reporter's job to hold the story until all the facts are in. A reporter must report that facts as they exist at this moment.

I do not think that there is need for a retraction. The facts as they occurred (at that moment) were reported. This was big news and filled the blogs and the letters to the editor as people reacted to that news. Further facts came to light and were reported (sorry can't research it all now, but I know at least MND said that troops are volunteers, trained to a standard and had to demonstrate that standard before getting stuck in).Quite true, it did not get the attention, but as further facts emerged they were reported.  Not the papers' faults if people didn't read the whole paper. Bigger news was emerging from India and the Lebanon.

Now you made a post a while ago asking why 'the lies were on the front page and the truth was on the back page'. Unfortunately it seems that's the way the news works. Leading to me to a post from Cobra-6 about 'scavangers of humans history' , but I digress....

Both statements are true, but I don't think it constitutes misconduct (IMHO).

Why? Are they playing fast and loose with the facts , no I dont't think so. "He said, I reported." I guess I am not saying that reporting the facts as they exist now constitutes, ipso facto, the whole truth, nor, by the same means can it considered misconduct unless the follow up point of view is not reported.

Once again, thank you for your insightful comments, but let's remember I am being the devil's advocate here having seen this up close. ('When asked, Police commented that at this time alcohol did not appear to be a factor in the crash' What at 1000 hrs ??etc ). A reporters job is to ask a question, get an answer , report it and develop the story. Reporters are not historians, they only provide the raw material for it, and some times that raw material is incomplete, even inaccurate or dreck.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: GAP on July 13, 2006, 12:49:29
That sounds like an excuse for bad reporting. They ARE accountable, as this thread attests.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Bruce Monkhouse on July 13, 2006, 12:52:01
Quote,
('When asked, Police commented that at this time alcohol did not appear to be a factor in the crash' What at 1000 hrs ??etc ).

Again, I mean no disrespect for your loss, but how would you have felt that the very same day you found out the headline that night was,
Alcohol Not Ruled Out As Factor In Death
Was Drinking and Driving Responsible?
Police Dodge Alcohol Question

..any one of those could have been the headline of the local paper causing even more suffering and then days later at page 7 a small story about not being a factor "even though it was being investigated" forever leaving a doubt in the readers mind?
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Mike Bobbitt on July 13, 2006, 13:02:41
I'll shy away from the banter and drop in briefly to say that CTV Newsnet had a short segment on Cpl. Boneca's return to Canada. I watched with baited breath, which I let out in relief when the segment ended with no mention of comments made on either side. It was strictly fact, and the way news should be reported. Kudos to CTV for not continuing to sensationalize things to a generally unwitting Canadian audience.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: cplcaldwell on July 13, 2006, 13:37:19
Bruce Monkhouse: Certainly, no disrespect taken. However, I doubt anything could have made feel better or worse at that point in time.

Your point is valid and we do see exactly what you illustrated all to often. In fact what I (we) got was a  piece several days later (that even Christie Blatchford would have been proud of..) so, in all in all, it (that part of whole debacle), turned out as a wash for me, maybe that's why I am being such a sod about this.This is part of what I mean about allowing the facts to emerge, first reports are often inaccurate, but seldom untrue. Most journalists, I think, would admit to this. Then, given, second reports are on pg 6 and not read by a lot of folks.   

Frankly I don't have a complete answer for you, perhaps here is where the lurkers from the fifth estate could enlighten us on how to write a headline?

GAP: Ack, your last, complete. Keeping posting brief.

Mike Bobbitt: I watched CBC live last night, had a little cry.
CTV can usually be counted on for this (IMHO) they did report the initial comments but did not belabour the point. The initial issue is no longer news. Oh and reference "a generally unwitting Canadian audience.." FIVE by FIVE.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Jarnhamar on July 13, 2006, 14:17:55
The media, if anything, excel at being able to manipulate the truth in such a way that it appears to be something else or perhaps lead readers into certain directions.  It's their thing, they have a knack for turning late soldiers into disillusionment for a mission. To turn soldiers tired from working long hours in 55-60C heat into careless soldiers leaving their weapons around.

Quote
Again, I mean no disrespect for your loss, but how would you have felt that the very same day you found out the headline that night was,
Alcohol Not Ruled Out As Factor In Death
Was Drinking and Driving Responsible?
Police Dodge Alcohol Question

Bruce I think that's an excellent point!

I think this is thee main issue that started this whole thread.  The media reporting this story presented the "truth" in such a way that it appeared to want the readers to believe a certain thing or fill the readers head with ideas. We know they do it. They know we do it. We cry foul and they cry free speech.

People unfortunately (though understandably) let their emotions get the better of them in this thread.  We want to defend our mission in which we believe in and defend this slain brothers privacy when it comes to 'talking crap'.  Our media friends want to defend their name, their freedom of press (?) and want to present an unbiased reporting platform (which we've called into question).

I'm not ready to condemn the media, I think they do more good than bad.  You find bad apples in the army and you find bad apples int he media.  In both cases when one person does something it has national consequences.  I think we in the army feel like we are held more accountable for our actions what we report and what we say.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: InterestedParty on July 13, 2006, 14:35:58
Quote
I'm not ready to condemn the media, I think they do more good than bad.


Quote
I think it's plain for all to see what the problem is and I don't think all journalists are to blame. You get people like Christie Blatchford, Matthew Fisher and Graeme Smith who actually have the parts to travel to Kandahar and see for themselves what is happening. They are almost unanimously in support of what we are doing over here and the usually provide excellent insights into the lives of our troops. What's more, all of the reporters over here seem to be emphatically refuting claims that morale is low or that troops are being "misled".

Mortar Guy/ Ghost778 raise some important points. We should be careful about giving the impression that the CF despises the media or that we are engaged in sweeping generalizations about the state of the 5th estate.

In the end we need the media to deliver our messages to the general public; in fact I would go further and suggest that we need the media more than they need us. 

The army mission can't succeed fully without a parallel success in generating and sustaining public support (the politics behind the AF mission are shakey enough).

I'm not sure it serves our long-term cause when we forget that there are quite a few notable media allies supporting the CF (as MG points out). The last thing we need is to breed suspicion and hostility among soldiers which might undermine valuable initiatives such as the embed program.

Whether we like it or not the media holds all the cards.

mdh
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: paracowboy on July 13, 2006, 14:49:33
bollocks. The media needs us far more than we do them. Without us, they have no stories to distort/invent in order to sell their advertising space. Without our casualties to gloat over like ghouls, they have no way to further their political agenda. Without us performing our duties in a professional manner, they wouldn't have the Right to a Free Press that they hide their lies behind. We give them that Right.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: 2 Cdo on July 13, 2006, 15:25:16
bollocks. The media needs us far more than we do them. Without us, they have no stories to distort/invent in order to sell their advertising space. Without our casualties to gloat over like ghouls, they have no way to further their political agenda. Without us performing our duties in a professional manner, they wouldn't have the Right to a Free Press that they hide their lies behind. We give them that Right.

Well said! :cheers:
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Centurian1985 on July 13, 2006, 15:44:29
I would have to take a position between the two of you.  The media is not inherently evil, nor are they innocently misguided.

I have found that the media does not deliberately portray us incorrectly, at least not all the time anyway.  Many of the media are just biased, incorrectly informed, or dont care if they portray military facts incorrectly.  They are not neccesarily incompetent, but are trapped by their own thinking.

1) Ignorance - knowing as little as most of them do (or dont) about the military they just dont understand how misinformed they appear when they consistently use incorrect terminology (i.e. interchanging armoured cars and tanks), or when they overemphasize normal military tasks as if they were extraordinary happenings (i.e. making a big deal about planning for operations in foreign countries before a deployment is approved, when that is part of our normal job).  

2) Stereotype - most newsies still see military personnel the same way as we were protrayed back in the 1970's.  They have no idea that these stereotypes were shattered years ago (despite perpetuation by some of our own people higher up), nor do they understand that we are not like the military forces portrayed in movies, nor are we exactly the same as our neighbors to the south, upon which most of them base their stereotypes.

3) Lack of Response - this is partly our own fault as a government department.  By consistently staying silent on many issues, this encourages the media to make their own assumptions.  When lacking information they will end up going with what they think they know (hence 1 and 2).  Our PR people need to be much more proactive and let the media know when their reporting is inaccurate or skewed, instead of the most commonly quoted phrase of 'no comment'.  If the media wont print retractions of errors, then the CF should be producing its own on-line reports pointing out inaccuracies and misconceptions.  

4) Its about making a buck! - nothing we can do about this one.  For every newspaper and media outlet, its about making money and keeping the shareholders happy.  If they can do it by slamming an easy no-response target like the CF, then thats what they will keep doing.            
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: cplcaldwell on July 13, 2006, 15:48:56
Quote
The press today is an army with carefully organized weapons, the journalists its officers, the readers its soldiers. But, as in every army, the soldier obeys blindly, and the war aims and operating plans change without his knowledge. The reader neither knows nor is supposed to know the purposes for which he is used and the role he is to play. There is no more appalling caricature of freedom of thought. Formerly no one was allowed to think freely; now it is permitted, but no one is capable of it any more. Now people want to think only what they are supposed to want to think, and this they consider freedom.

 Oswald Spengler
 

Now that was a nasty thing for me to do wasn't it?
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Centurian1985 on July 13, 2006, 15:58:03
Nice quote but completely misses the important roles played by editors and owners/shareholders who have the greatest influence over what is and is not published.   
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: cplcaldwell on July 13, 2006, 16:24:57
Centurian 1985: Quite right. Shall we extend the metaphor (or is that an allegory??) : General's(Editors), DM's (Publishers), Ministers (Owners)?

As to the point I was trying to make. I am not so sure that the 'Press' is the entire point here, and if it is, it is more for the reasons you pointed out than because of any general malevolence. That and the point, that the reader, at least in this context, is woefully unprepared to digest these issues.

Let's not forget the reader here, after all a trip to the blogs at the Globe and Mail give a fast (and totally unscientific) insight into the depth of knowledge the "average person" has on these subjects.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: MarkOttawa on July 13, 2006, 16:25:18
cplcaldwell: More on Oswald:

"The Decline of the West"
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/006671.html

Mark
Ottawa


Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: cplcaldwell on July 13, 2006, 16:27:10
MarkOttawa: Shot on. Fire for effect.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: MarkOttawa on July 13, 2006, 17:26:39
cplcaldwell: My only roundl!

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Infanteer on July 13, 2006, 22:49:20
In the end we need the media to deliver our messages to the general public; in fact I would go further and suggest that we need the media more than they need us. 

The army mission can't succeed fully without a parallel success in generating and sustaining public support (the politics behind the AF mission are shakey enough).

I'm not sure it serves our long-term cause when we forget that there are quite a few notable media allies supporting the CF (as MG points out). The last thing we need is to breed suspicion and hostility among soldiers which might undermine valuable initiatives such as the embed program.

Whether we like it or not the media holds all the cards.

mdh

Agree with you on this one MDH - there is a good discussion on another forum about how the Al Qa'ida media machine is outdoing us in the west.  All our tactical victories will go for naught if we get the chair kicked out from under us by a superior press releases.

http://lightfighter.net/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/5131022531/m/5141078052
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: milnews.ca on July 13, 2006, 23:02:45
As much as I've been disappointed in the coverage, I am starting to see more editorialists taking a more reasoned and honest approach (heaven forbid!):

From the Whitehorse Daily Star, 13 Jul 06
"Please respect my family's request for privacy during our time of grief."  Look at the last line. Will we in the media do that? We, who fought so hard for the right to attend repatriation ceremonies of the remains of fallen soldiers?
Word yesterday was that media will be allowed to take pictures of the return of Boneca's coffin, presumably with the consent of his parents, but not interview them.
But that's at a military base where access is controlled. What
happens when Boneca's parents go home for their son's funeral, now
that they've been unwittingly thrown into a huge controversy?
Will we be true to our word then?
(....)
Will we in the media, wherever we stand on Afghanistan, examine
these issues in a way that respects our fallen soldiers and all who
serve?
I hope so. But I wouldn't count on it.



from the Orangeville Citizen, 13 Jul 06
http://www.citizen.on.ca/news/2006/0713/Columns/035.html

"He hated it over there," according to DeCorte. "He was misled as to what was going to be there when he got there, and what he would be doing. He was very mad about that."

Boneca, of course, is not here to either confirm or deny this version of events, but it's a pity, given that he made the ultimate sacrifice, that this negative approach might come to characterize his service.

It's understandable that those who loved him are terribly upset. Who wouldn't be? But it's questionable journalistically to focus on such comments without at least having their veracity confirmed from elsewhere.

Let's hope it continues, but as the lady said, I doubt it...


Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Mike Bobbitt on July 13, 2006, 23:13:43
That's a good sign indeed. We can't (shouldn't) expect all the reports to take this view, but it's nice to see they're starting to gain some ground.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Cloud Cover on July 13, 2006, 23:17:06
I'd like to think, that maybe this site had some influence on these recent reflections. 
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: cplcaldwell on July 14, 2006, 00:21:56
Whiskey 601 : Great mountains, from little grains of sand, are built.
Discussion, discension and dialectic among friends: carries weight.

All: that's my fifteen minutes. 

BZ

By these means. Out


Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Michael Dorosh on July 15, 2006, 02:31:05
CTV had an "Ask Us" segment on reservists tonight - I don't know if the statement that reservists have "seldom been employed" on operations until the 1990s is accurate but the piece stressed that 250 reservists are in the front line in Afghanistan and that they receive the same pre-deployment training as regulars.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: HollywoodHitman on July 15, 2006, 05:01:20
I'm guessing the lack of Reservists actually deploying since the 1990's is indicated by the considerable number of Medals that seem to be on their chests......There's no question that statement is inaccurate.

Was that statement made by a reservist or CTV?
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Michael Dorosh on July 15, 2006, 06:40:20
I'm guessing the lack of Reservists actually deploying since the 1990's is indicated by the considerable number of Medals that seem to be on their chests......There's no question that statement is inaccurate.

Was that statement made by a reservist or CTV?

It was by CTV - Ask Us is very brief, so I guess I can sort of understand the comment.  Makes me giggle to think of "reservists" like Sir Arthur Currie or Bert Hoffmeister "not deploying on operations" but I guess they meant more recently.  Funny, though, in just my regiment alone even in the late 1980s you would see medals for UNEF and UNFICYP - and while those were not for hotspots like the Airborne faced in Cyprus in 1974, I think they still count as "operations". And certainly reservists were integral in our Cold War commitment to Norway and the Federal Republic of Germany, even if a medal for that was late in coming. I realize NATO exercises are not "operations" by definition but those guys were trained to face the Red Army at a moment's notice.  At any rate, I give them 99 percent accuracy for that one; perhaps there really is a trend that things are improving now that the press has had time to give sober second thought.  Not that it excuses them from not doing so in the first place.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: HollywoodHitman on July 15, 2006, 06:55:44
Understood Michael. The reason I asked is that once again it illustrates quite vividly that little research, if any at all was done by a media agency before releasing a half truth or completely inaccurate statement to the general public who hardly know better.

Cheers,

HH
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: milnews.ca on July 15, 2006, 09:20:19
Local media coverage of Cpl. Boneca coming home....

http://66.244.236.251/article_7674.php
Slain soldier arrives
By SARAH ELIZABETH BROWN
Jul 15, 2006, 00:08

Silent but for bagpipes and orders from the bearer party commander, a simple procession welcomed Cpl. Anthony Boneca home Friday morning.

Borne from Toronto on a WestJet flight, the casket carrying the 21-year-old soldier killed in action last Sunday in Kandahar, Afghanistan, arrived at Thunder Bay’s airport shortly before noon. 

From right, parents Antonio and Shirley Boneca with girlfriend Megan DeCorte and her mom Laurie, hold hands for strength from one another as the casket of Cpl. Anthony Boneca approaches.

As the airport’s usual daily hustle and bustle went on around them, the civilian personnel unloading the plane stood silent as Boneca’s casket was led away on a low trolley across the tarmac by eight kilted soldiers.

Waiting outside the airfield’s chain link fence, family and friends stood along either side of a narrow, puddled road.

Four relatives carried single yellow roses.

Surrounded by members of their son’s reserve unit, the Lake Superior Scottish Regiment, Antonio and Shirley Boneca stood on either side of an air force padre.

Megan DeCorte, Boneca’s 19-year-old girlfriend, stood on Shirley Boneca’s other side.
In a row, all four stood with hands clasped.

First in line to greet the fallen soldier’s casket was LSSR chief Lt.-Col. Brian Faulkner.

As the casket approached the gate, a kilted piper began playing Flowers in the Forest as eight Lake Superior reservists shouldered Boneca’s casket for the 30-metre walk to a waiting hearse.

Neatly tucked and pinned, the Canadian flag covering the casket has travelled with Boneca’s remains from Afghanistan.

Most of the pallbearers were about as young as the soldier whose body they carried.

Marching at the front of the four pallbearers on the casket’s left side, a young blond corporal’s face was still as stone as a single tear slipped down his unlined cheek.

Led by the Thunder Bay Garrison’s padre, Capt. Keri McLaughlin, the pallbearers lowered the casket into the hearse.

Relieved of their burden, they marched away, MacGillivray tartan swishing in time.

Chief warrant officer George Romick, the LSSR’s regimental sergeant major and a 30-year reservist, invited family to place flowers on Boneca’s casket before it proceeded to the funeral home.

Boneca will lie in state over the weekend, guarded by “Lake Sups” — pronounced “soups”— until the funeral Monday morning at St. Patrick’s Cathedral.

© Copyright by Chronicle Journal.com

Sorry about pix quality - best one web page had to offer...


Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: MarkOttawa on July 15, 2006, 15:14:18
Another great piece by the Globe's Christie Blatchford (full text not online):

An epitaph unworthy of this soldier
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Page/document/v4/sub/MarketingPage?user_URL=http://www.theglobeandmail.com%2Fservlet%2Fstory%2FLAC.20060715.COBLATCH15%2FTPStory%2FNational%2Fcolumnists&ord=5606384&brand=theglobeandmail&redirect_reason=2&denial_reasons=none&force_login=false

Excerpt:

'It was a couple of my readers -- former reserve infantryman Tim Richter and serving reserve infantryman Sergeant Matt Kirkpatrick -- who really nailed it. Both were writing about the death of Corporal Tony Boneca, the 21-year-old reserve infanteer who was killed, on a lovely morning a week ago tomorrow, in a vicious battle against the Taliban.

Mr. Richter's note landed first. He was regretting the tawdry spectacle, at home, which arose out of the young soldier's death and centred upon comments he'd made to his girlfriend and which, as seems inevitable now in the instant information age, found their way into the media.

"Surely he wouldn't want to be remembered for his private confidences to his girlfriend?" Mr. Richter wrote, and then said sorrowfully, "We have been so reckless in writing his epitaph."

Yes, we have.

But then we in Canada -- press and public both -- have been so reckless for so long in our treatment of our military that our collective carelessness with this young soldier's memory is hardly surprising.

As Sgt. Kirkpatrick -- who has twice served overseas, including one stint in Afghanistan, and who is preparing for another tour here in about a year -- put it in an e-mail, "I feel for Cpl. Boneca's family, but the media reaction to his death is a loss for all Canadians. A soldier dying in service to Canada is only a tragedy if we waste his gift."
   
Sgt. Kirkpatrick is, as are so many soldiers, what my National Post colleague Matthew Fisher described the other day as "ferociously articulate."..'

As many posts on this thread have demonstrated.

Norman Spector chose this piece as THE COLUMN I’M GLAD I DIDN’T WRITE on his website. Enough said.
http://www.members.shaw.ca/nspector4/TWO.htm

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: milnews.ca on July 15, 2006, 16:55:30
Interesting line from this piece, from one of the Reservists quoted:

"I also asked them, in my will, to never speak publicly against the mission, as I felt it would stain any contribution I may have had."

Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: milnews.ca on July 15, 2006, 23:58:30
Well, this is a pretty public way to find out how Canadian Press got some of Tony's e-mails....

http://ianbblog.blogspot.com/2006/07/rip-anthony-joseph-boneca.html

Also, I've heard from people in the know that some reporters would call the parents' house, saying they were friends of the family, then identify themselves as media when a family member was put on the line.

Nice....

Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: George Wallace on July 16, 2006, 00:16:43
Just reading some of the crap that this 'best friend', "Ian Benninghaus of Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada" with a tagline of "Live 365 from the mistake by the lake", is posting and the profanity.  For a guy who says he is six years older than Tony, he sure isn't too mature.  http://ianbblog.blogspot.com/ doesn't leave much doubt where this guy's agenda lies.  I wonder about his tattoo also......looks a little bit like a stylized swastika.  Oh! Well!  Another raving lunatic on the internet.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Michael Dorosh on July 16, 2006, 00:23:05
Just reading some of the crap that this 'best friend', "Ian Benninghaus of Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada" with a tagline of "Live 365 from the mistake by the lake", is posting and the profanity.  For a guy who says he is six years older than Tony, he sure isn't too mature.  http://ianbblog.blogspot.com/ doesn't leave much doubt where this guy's agenda lies.  I wonder about his tattoo also......looks a little bit like a stylized swastika.  Oh! Well!  Another raving lunatic on the internet.

This "best friend" seems to be capitalizing on his friend's death to get hits on his lame website, doesn't he.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: milnews.ca on July 16, 2006, 00:30:11
Michael - indeed

I'm surprised the Canadian Press reporter was so obvious re:  posting where they're from.  It'll be interesting to see how long this post stays up.

Yet another area to cover in the "Media Non-disclosure Annex" of one's will....
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Jarnhamar on July 16, 2006, 03:47:52
Quote
This "best friend" seems to be capitalizing on his friend's death to get hits on his lame website, doesn't he.

His best friend sounds like a complete *******
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: milnews.ca on July 16, 2006, 08:59:36
Again, it appears SOME get the point - highlights are mine.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/oluwatoyin071506.htm

Who speaks for our dead soldiers?
By Anthony Oluwatoyin
Saturday, July 15, 2006

We have a new low in Canadian journalism. Our dead soldiers in the Afghan Mission are being churned into a most unsavoury feed for the mad cow of anti-liberation sentiment.

A story put out by the Canadian Press (CP), and reprinted across the country, puts the lie and laugh to that organization’s self-promotion as "Canada’s multimedia news agency … the source for unbiased, timely reporting." In fact, the very timing of the story and its follow-up is as much an issue as the unspeakable skew of the story itself.

In Vancouver’s Province, July 11, the story started out life under the title of "No sympathy for dead soldier." Then followed comments from Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor in response to alleged comments about disillusion, attributed to our latest casualty in the liberation of Afghanistan, Cpl. Boneca, as allegedly relayed by alleged relatives.

"This is the military," O’Connor said. "You don't vote in and vote out of operations. You're in it."

That’s the "No sympathy" part, I guess. The Province, anyway, is saying that our Defence Minister has no heart for our heroic dead.

Well. If this be treason, brothers in print, make the most of it. Or, as that marvelous Lady of the Books would say: "Words escape me."

In fact, Cpl. Boneca’s father, no less, echoed our Defence Minister in defence of his late son. Antonio Boneca said his son, Anthony, "loved being in the army" and was aware of the situation he was facing. "In all my conversations with my son, there was never any mention of him not being well enough or fit enough to carry out his military duties."

And here’s where the ugly truth comes out. Boneca's father said while his son talked of the difficulties of the Afghan Mission, "to cope with the weather, the sand, and the situation the young children endured," the fact is that our latest hero told his father that "he was proud to make a difference in their lives and said he wished these children could live like we do in Canada."

There. That’s what the Bush-bashing ignorati cannot stand. They keep getting head-butted by young men from the front lines who keep sending word of explicit commitment. These young men cannot be dismissed or disregarded. These are the boys who took on the full nobility of sacrifice. They keep reminding us exactly why. How inconvenient for agenda-journalists!

In the U.S. there is now almost no mention of the pride Cindy Sheehan’s son took in his work, posthumously getting the Purple Heart. The media focus is all about his mother’s complete co-optation by anti-American self-mortification.

With every Canadian casualty, the serpent-windings of the loon-left ensnarl relative after relative in search of an unbroken narrative of dissent, disillusion and despair.

So first we hear from Boneca’s relatives insisting the young man was finished with the mission. Only later, the day after, for the most part, was there "balance," with reports to the contrary from his father.

Exactly when did the CP know of the full story? Was the full story released to participating news outlets all in a piece, or was the negative portion given uncontested first mention, to maximize demoralizing effects? Or, did different outlets monkey about with the reports, in an effort to undermine the war effort without appearing to raise issues about the ultimate "source," the CP?

Our CBC was at its twisted best. They had Boneca’s "Uncle Bill" supposedly conceding of the young man, "I don’t know what he saw, don’t know what he did…" but actually, inexorably, concluding: "Get the troops out, get them back home"! At which point, dead soldier, alleged relative and agenda-journalist merged into an indecipherable whole.

When the Communist Broadcast of Canada, the CBC, put on "Uncle Bill," did they at the same time already have the contrarian account of Boneca’s father? Did the CBC suppress the latter in pursuit of their anti-Canadian agenda?

The media, normally entrusted with our right to know, is itself under a pall here. So who will investigate the investigators?

Barely two months ago, the same shenanigans were in full nuance of articulation and presentation in the instance of Canada’s first female combat soldier killed on the front lines, Nichola Goddard. Her full-toothed embrace of the risks of duty had to compete with skillful gaps drilled deep into the cleansing details of a partial or total ban on media coverage of repatriation of fallen soldiers, memorials and funeral services.

Dr. Goddard, Nichola’s father, took the bait, turning the funeral of a hero into partisan jibes at Prime Minister Harper’s coverage policies. Nichola’s husband, fellow soldier, Jason Beam, had already restored equilibrium though. Following Nichola’s death, he said: "We shouldn't tuck our tails behind our legs and run …. We've kind of got our foot in the door now to start making a difference. I think we need to follow through and carry on with the mission."

Amen. Who speaks for our soldiers? Who speaks for our dead soldiers? They do. Shakespeare got it exactly wrong. There is a goodness and truth that cannot be buried with bones.

The media needs to be banned from gross attempts to exploit grieving relatives into solace and comfort for the enemy.

I said treason — by any other name.

Anthony Oluwatoyin, a columnist for The Afro News, writes on politics, race and religion. He can be reached at oluwatoyin63@yahoo.ca
---

I'm dropping a line to Mr. Oluwatoyin to thank him.


Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: rmacqueen on July 16, 2006, 11:12:02
Harkens back to when the media were whinning about being banned from the repat ceremonies because they cared so much.

From my blog, Robbs Rants (http://www.rmacqueen.blogspot.com/ (http://www.rmacqueen.blogspot.com/))

We should be ashamed!

Corporal Anthony Boneca gave his life in the service of this country and all certain members of the media care about are some emails he sent.  Headlines like “Slain soldier felt `misled'” and “Reservist was disillusioned with military” were plastered all over the place.

This is not the time!

At a time when his family should be left alone to mourn their loss, members of the media are acting like a pack of slavering dogs with the scent of controversy filling the air.  Tripping over themselves to get the scoop, they have shown little consideration for the fact a man has died.

The media have managed to paint this soldier as a whiner, an image that will probably stick to his memory for years to come.  And, at the time his family should be left alone to plan for his funeral, his father is forced to come out and defend his only son.

They should all be ashamed - and we should too.  We have enabled the media by buying into this feeding frenzy instead of turning our backs on this circus and behaving like decent human beings.

We should be ashamed!
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Fishbone Jones on July 16, 2006, 12:00:33
Sorry. I never enabled the press to do what they did.

I'm not ashamed, nor should I be.

If your feeling bad about something, that has nothing to do with me, don't include me, with the royal 'we.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Mud on July 18, 2006, 21:21:13
I've been reading this thread for the last couple of hours, I could'nt stop.

I'm a member of the media, a TV camerguy, and for a short time (94-95)  was in the army doing a QL2 course with the reserves.  I know it was a very limited experience but I have always been very pro-military and it  only increased my respect for those who go on to much higher levels of military experience.

Let my say that I fully understand the anger and frustration about the way Cpl Boneca's death was covered  - I won't appologize for anyone, the media are as flawed as any other group of people and although I reject the idea of a political agenda, I agree that sensationalism drives the story far too often.  And the guy who suggested that "we" are to blame was bang-on, the media will respond ultimately to market pressure (ie- sales and ratings) and if people rejected this type of reporting en-masse, I can assure you that managment would notice.

 Recently I was offered a chance to go to Afghanistan to cover the war, I declined for personal reasons (bad timing) but was thinking of going on a later rotation.  I told my co-workers that I really thought this was a story that needed to be told.  I believe very strongly in the Afghan mission and think that it's important that it be covered.  But I was really disturbed by the posting on this thread that indicated that the lives of  soldiers may have been put in danger in order to make room for the media.  Can anyone comment more on this?  And is it really futile to have a media presence there?  Is the coverage so bad that it hurts more than it helps?  I would never want to go if I thought people's lives may be at risk because of my presence and if the vast majority of the troops feel the media presence is a bad thing.

I'm glad that things have turned for the military, (I remember things were very bad in 94-95 and also remember hoping it was'nt too long before things changed).  Thanks to all of you who serve us in defence of freedom in Afghanistan and all who proudly serve this country in any part of the world and here at home.  You really do represent the best of our country!
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: GAP on July 18, 2006, 21:30:33
Thank you for being upfront about being affiliated with the media.  :salute:
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Sheep Dog AT on July 18, 2006, 22:03:30
I think someone here mentioned that he had to make room for the press and move his troops around to less armoured vehicles.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: HollywoodHitman on July 21, 2006, 04:42:15
In concert with Recceguy's post directed to RMaqueen, do not lump me in the royal 'we' category either. I think that this thread illlustrates and validates that a forum discussion by professionals with informed opinions can affect change, even if it's subtle.

I have nothing to be ashamed about, neither do the majority of the posters here. By being silent we would have enabled those who had started this fiasco in the first place. The only group of people who should be ashamed, are the MSM who did not do the research, or told half truths or reported statements taken completely out of context. Some of the articles discussed in previous posts speak of members of the media who are embarassed and disgusted by the sensational reporting of some of their peers. It speaks well of them.

What we shouldnt forget is the media circus surrounding Tony's death, and how we can prevent it from happening again. The media is the supposed watch dog of government goings on, keeping people accountable etc. My question is, who holds the media accountable? Who polices the police?
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Bill Smy on July 24, 2006, 03:32:49
 
 http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Worthington_Peter/2006/07/23/1698102.html

Peter WorthingtonSun, July 23, 2006

LET HIM REST IN PEACE 

Anthony Boneca knew the risks of combat in Afghanistan -- he was on his second tour
By Peter Worthington
   
It was a former sergeant with the famed 1st Canadian Parachute Battalion in WWI who wondered if a great disservice hadn't been done to Cpl. Anthony Boneca, the 17th soldier killed in action in Afghanistan.

Ronald (Andy) Anderson, a retired Toronto cop, feels the media has misrepresented this solider by stressing that he "bitched and griped about his military service."

Andy expected this of the Toronto Star, but was disappointed that the Sun also uncritically repeated grumblings that Boneca had apparently written to his girlfriend. He was disappointed too, that as a former soldier, I hadn't reacted.

"It is the 'nature of the beast' for all soldiers to gripe and whine about their duties, and officers of any regiment are easy targets," he wrote me. "But when duty calls, it is the pride of the regiment that draws all soldiers together."

While we'll never know what went on in Cpl. Boneca's mind, the fact that he was a reservist on his second tour of Afghanistan, speaks volumes.

For his prospective father-in-law to sound off to the media that Boneca was "disillusioned ... wasn't ready for this kind of thing," and that he had insufficient training for combat, maligns the reputation and legacy of one whom his comrades, his officers and his own father felt was a fine soldier.

His dad, Antonio, sought to refute that his son was a disgruntled and fearful soldier. He said his son "knew what he was getting into" and that "he loved the army." This makes more sense since, after all, he'd joined the reserves (the Lake Superior Regiment four years ago) and was trained at home and in the field.

Yes, duty and patrols in Kabul were different than fighting patrols in Kandahar, but every Canadian soldier in Afghanistan knows the risks, knows his job and is there by choice. Morale is high, because the calibre of soldier is high and they know what they are doing.

As an aside, the weaponry and equipment that the girlfriend's father so deplores, is better and more plentiful than Canadian soldiers are accustomed to. And it's slated to get better under the Harper government.

It taxes credulity to suppose soldiers don't know what they're facing in Afghanistan. It's why some enlisted. Before we had more than an advance guard in Kandahar, Gen. Rick Hillier was warning that this was no peacekeeping mission; that our troops faced a resourceful enemy, and casualties were inevitable. How can that be interpreted as being "misled."

The presence of the Governor-General, the Defence Minister and Chief of Defence Staff at Trenton when Boneca's body came home is testimony to his value.

He died for his country, and it shames him to be depicted as a whiner who wanted out. And no blame on his girlfriend, Megan DeCorte, if he bellyached in letters to her. As Andy Anderson has pointed out, all soldiers do that.

As if to endorse the disillusion supposedly felt by Cpl. Boneca, the media noted that AWL cases (absent without leave) have doubled in the military since 9/11. Reports imply that this is akin to desertion. This is bizarre. Overstaying a leave, going on a bender, absent to see a girlfriend, missing a train, whatever, is not "desertion" but AWL (AWOL is the American term).

Minor offence

"Deserters" are what a bunch of Americans now in Canada are -- they volunteered for the military and ran away when orders came for Iraq or Afghanistan. To some, that might seem like cowardice, even if it's called "conscientious objecting."

Desertion should not be confused with draft dodging, as in the Vietnam war. And it most certainly isn't AWL, a relatively minor offence punished by a reduction in rank, confinement to barracks, a token fine, even a warning.

Heck, AWL is what Sasha Trudeau was when he was in the reserves and missing from Camp Gagetown for a lively weekend in Quebec City.

So let Cpl. Tony Boneca RIP as the soldier he wanted to be, and as the soldier he was.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Sheep Dog AT on July 24, 2006, 11:11:53
+1
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Thucydides on July 24, 2006, 11:54:04
Thank you Mud. If you do go over then you join the ranks of the media who do know what they are talking about, and will serve to counterbalance the poorly researched and uninformed "journalism" which is responsible for the anger and dismay you see in this forum. We really need more people like you to get over there and tell the story as it actually is, not go looking for some slant or controversy.

In fact, if you read more of these editorials posted on this site, you see the danger that ill informed media can cause, it plays right into the enemy's hands as they conduct information operations against Canada and Canadians.

Looking forward to seeing your work.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Echo9 on July 24, 2006, 12:05:30
Interesting point here- while Cpl Boneca was loudly noted by the media as being a reservist, there's nothing of the sort for Cpl Warren, who, by virtue of being with the Black Watch, would also be one (unless he's RSS, posted- unlikely though- he'd be listed as a member of his home unit, and in any event, it's unlikely that a res unit would let one of its RSS members go on a tour that's led by another area).

I'd be interested in knowing whether this is just an oversight, or if it was something that came out directly by the interviews with Cpl Boneca's family.


In any event, once in theatre, there's no such thing as reg/ res anymore- just soldiers.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Mud on July 24, 2006, 12:21:06
I've been working for some time now on getting off the ground a story on how reservists are being trained for the Afghan mission, this all started with a conversation I had with an officer at Ottawa airport back in the winter.  I'm pitching it to my management again as I think it is very relevant given the events of the last few weeks and would go a long way to despel any myths about soldiers going to Afghanistan "unprepared".  I can only make suggestions, management always has the last word on these things....
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: GAP on July 24, 2006, 12:24:40
I've been working for some time now on getting off the ground a story on how reservists are being trained for the Afghan mission, this all started with a conversation I had with an officer at Ottawa airport back in the winter.  I'm pitching it to my management again as I think it is very relevant given the events of the last few weeks and would go a long way to despel any myths about soldiers going to Afghanistan "unprepared".  I can only make suggestions, management always has the last word on these things....

I should think, in light of the controversy around Cpl Boneca, there would be an interest by both the media and the public.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Mud on July 24, 2006, 12:28:19
I'm trying,
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Thucydides on July 24, 2006, 12:32:15
I've been working for some time now on getting off the ground a story on how reservists are being trained for the Afghan mission, this all started with a conversation I had with an officer at Ottawa airport back in the winter.  I'm pitching it to my management again as I think it is very relevant given the events of the last few weeks and would go a long way to despel any myths about soldiers going to Afghanistan "unprepared".  I can only make suggestions, management always has the last word on these things....

Unless you go the Micheal Yon route and become an independent blog journalist. Maybe not an option for you, but something to think about.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Sheep Dog AT on July 24, 2006, 12:45:02
Tagging along with a bunch of reservists during work up for 3 months would give you a good idea of what goes on.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Mud on July 25, 2006, 15:03:57
Three months would be great, in a perfect world.  Believe me I would really like to follow someone getting ready for deployment for that length of time a get elements from the whole story to work with, but that's documentary, not news.  It's just the logistical reality of it - but it looks like management is biting this time.  Call me an idealist but I have high hopes for this piece, I'm  determined to get across what motivates a reservist to go to a place like Afghanistan and that they are well prepared to go.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Sheep Dog AT on July 25, 2006, 15:16:24
Well to be fair those reporters imbedded overseas's aren't doing a documentary.  By watching them for that amount of time you get to potentially see them raw and what goes into making them rock hard.  Just a thought.  If time is a constraint then I definately suggest the Wainwright exercise.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Mud on July 25, 2006, 15:33:43
What's the Wainright excercise?  I may be able to arrange that (I'm totally sibject to what my boss and DND will allow)....
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Sheep Dog AT on July 25, 2006, 16:10:37
The Wainwright Ex is about 3 weeks in duration and is basically the validation of the Battle Group.  During those 3 weeks the BG goes through various scenario's that previous BG's have experienced in theatre already as well as other one's.  They also do some live fire ranges that you would enjoy.  I'm not sure how you would go about getting aboard but there are various pers here that could direct you better then me such as Gunner and Teddy Ruxpin.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: pbi on July 25, 2006, 16:35:39
Mud: try contacting the Public Affairs office of the Land Force Area HQ in your part of the country. The HQs are:

Land Force Western : Edmonton

Land Force Central: Toronto

Secteur de l'Est: Montreal

Land Force Atlantic: Halifax.

These would be good entry points to the Army Public Affairs system. If you explain what you are trying to do, and why, the PAO might be willing to make a recommendation to their Area commander that you be allowed to participate. The decision would be taken by the commander, not the PAO. If you are approved, then you would be put into direct contact with the PAO of the force that is undergoing training. They would coordinate your involvement. There is more to it than this, but that gives you a simple overview.

As a former Reservist myself, I wish you success. Canadians (and some people in the RegF) are waking up to realize that Army Reservists are not 'big cadets' but are an important part of our Army. They can fight and die just like us Regulars.  I hope you get a chance to tell the story.

Cheers
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: cplcaldwell on July 25, 2006, 16:52:18
Mud, looking at your profile I see Toronto is your location.

Much as we all love Wainwright you might find it a little less stressful and expensive to stay closer to home. The Reserve Brigade, 32 CBG,(indeed all of the Central Area PRes units) will be having their summer exercise at Petawawa in August.

The 32 Brigade website is here (http://www.army.dnd.ca/32cbg_hq/home_e.htm).

Note the PA contacts here (http://www.army.dnd.ca/32cbg_hq/PA_Room_e.htm).

From these guys you may also be able to get info on the next Afstan roto stepping off in Aug

Not quite sure who is on leave now or not. The location of 32 Bde HQ is the New Denison Armoury on Sheppard (between Keele and Dufferin). Call these guys, whether you work for the National Post or the Mini-Mart Weekly Newsrag you'll get the whole treatment, I'll bet.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: cplcaldwell on July 25, 2006, 17:04:29
Oh yeah, the media link for the Vigilant Guardian exercise is here (http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/Exvigilantguardian/html/media.asp)
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Mud on July 25, 2006, 20:02:29
Thanks for the great info from everyone, it will all go to good use and if it airs I will post the time and date ( it's for TV)  I hope this story does help to right the wrong impression that many may have gotten after the death of Cpl Boneca.  Man, how things change! When I did my QL2 there were doubts as to whether there would still be an army in a few years - today I might have made a different career choice...
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Sheep Dog AT on July 25, 2006, 20:49:55
There were a series of shows that highlighted the military ie SAR Tech's, Boarding parties etc.  Truth, Duty, Valor.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: tonykeene on July 31, 2006, 16:32:32
Sorry for your loss but this is just stupid,

Quote,
But reporting the facts is what these people do, they can't in most instances parse out the truth.

The whole reason of "free press" is to ensure the general public has the truth, anything else is just wrong. Some people may be happy getting their news from the National Inquirer/ News Of the World but I expect something more....

As a young, cub reporter for The Barrie Examiner, 40 years ago, I was tasked by my editor to approach the families of two youngsters who had been killed the evening before by a hit-and-run on a country road.  We wanted to run their pictures.
I phoned the boy's family, and was given a curt and outright no.  I called the girl's house, and was told I could come over.
Going to that house remains one of the hardest things I have ever done in my life, both as a journalist and as a soldier.  I was welcomed, offered tea, and the mother had several photos ready for me.  We talked briefly, I offered my deepest synmpathies, and I promised her I would return the picture I had selected, in perfect condition.
Moments after my return to the newsroom, a giant of a man walked in, and asked for me by name.  He was the boy's father.  He gave me an envelope.
"This is a picture of my son" he said.  "The other family told me how courteous and kind you were.  Please show people how my son looked...show them what has been lost."

Sometimes when I think of these things...I still weep.

The idea that reporters, trying to do their jobs to the best of their ability, are out to get us, is the cause of most of the trouble.  They are not the enemy.  They do not hate us, but they know that a lot of us hate them.  It should not be.



 

Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Bruce Monkhouse on July 31, 2006, 16:39:50
Hey, printing their pictures with the permission of the next-of-kin is a fine tribute.......only today the story underneath the pictures would probably read like a bad Saturday Night Live skit of the "Church Lady".


"..alone at night,...just the two of them...hooooow convenient....."



Don't get me wrong, I don't hate reporters, I hate what the system has made them become.....
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Target Up on July 31, 2006, 17:59:24
That's what irks me the most, the never ending quest for the story behind the story.  Sometimes there just ain't one.  Sometimes, as Sigmund said, a cigar is just a cigar.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: paracowboy on August 01, 2006, 20:29:44
The idea that reporters, trying to do their jobs to the best of their ability, are out to get us, is the cause of most of the trouble. 
if they stopped putting their own spin on facts, stuck to reporting the truth, and stopped mis-quoting us, there wouldn't  be a problem.
Quote
They are not the enemy.
  Yes, they are. Not all of them, but too many to take any of them on faith. I've had too many personal, first-hand encounters with the liars who call themselves journalists to believe anything else.
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: Centurian1985 on August 01, 2006, 21:05:08
if they stopped putting their own spin on facts, stuck to reporting the truth, and stopped mis-quoting us, there wouldn't  be a problem.  

It is such a simple process to correctly quote a person. 

You ask a question.
They give you an answer.
You write it down.
You read it back to the person.
They confirm that what you wrote is what they said.

Its not rocket science!  We've been doing it in debriefs, interviews, handling, and interrogations since WWI.  Its even simpler when the other person is willingly giving information and willing to repeat statements so that they can be written down correctly.  Thus, whenever it occurs, you have to ask - was the person incompetent, stupid, or deliberately spinning our words to fit their story?   ::)
Title: Re: Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"
Post by: CPL Kevin on September 28, 2006, 02:57:37
I am a member of the LSSR the unit that Boneca was part of i might not of been one of Bonecas life long friends but i can tell you that he was all for the mission and one of the best troops i know. Just because he tells his girl that he misses home and wants out of the desert does not mean he hates the mission. I can't tell you how many times i have said i want out of LFCA TC MEAFORD or wainwright does that mean i hate the mission no it means i miss home and my old lady.