Another lesson in being careful about what you say in a public forum

[scoutfinch]

This is further evidence that we must think carefully about the content of our posts here.

The Halifax Chronical Herald has relied on army.ca as a source commenting on the 'desertion' story.  (see the closing paragraphs of the story http://www.herald.ns.ca/Front/550004.html)

Kudos to the mods for catching the thread early and shutting down the speculation that was undoubtedly going to be rampant had it continued. 

To be clear, I am not challenging the comment that was quoted nor questioning the author's right to post if he/she was there.  It is the second and third hand speculation that is dangerous.

 

[Journeyman]

To be clear, I am not challenging the comment that was quoted nor questioning the author's right to post if he/she was there.  It is the second and third hand speculation that is dangerous.

Full agreement.
But also bear in mind that comments from even first-hand witnesses, particularly speculation, can be twisted to fit someone's agenda/media bias.

 

[rmacqueen]

Definitely underscores the fact that, as professionals (even when retired), we have to keep in mind what we are saying.

But also bear in mind that comments from even first-hand witnesses, particularly speculation, can be twisted to fit someone's agenda/media bias.

We also need to keep in mind the perceptions someone from outside the CF can get based on what is said on these forums.  The CF has come a long way and it would be terrible if some post, innocent as it might seem at the time, were to set us back in the eyes of the Canadian public.

Kudos to the mods for catching the thread early and shutting down the speculation that was undoubtedly going to be rampant had it continued.

Agreed, keep up the vigilance (insert a** kissing smiley  ;D)

 

[Cloud Cover]

Agreed. It is what it is, and when the facts come out, let the facts speak for themselves. Lets not forget that some of the folks involved in that scrape are still over there, putting it on the line for all of us.

 

[3rd Herd]

Full agreement.
But also bear in mind that comments from even first-hand witnesses, particularly speculation, can be twisted to fit someone's agenda/media bias.

A policeman shows up at a bank hold up to find five eyewitnesses. Number one says the suspect is 5 10 blond and blue eyed, Number two states suspect is 5 6 dark haired and brown eyed, Number three states suspect was 6 3 and had an Afro, Number four describes suspect as a midget wearing a clown suit and Number five agrees with all. Besides being twisted to fit an agenda there is the human psychological aspect, how many times have you heard "Did you see that". Recently, a historian (Donald Groves) concluded that most battlefield eyewitness reports should be "taken with a grain of salt" for this exact reason. Though a little out of this exact theme a multitude of sourcing should be used. In the historical context radio/sigs logs seem to be the most accurate of any information sourcing about events. To historians the evidence only provides a theory which sometimes stands the test of time and at other times does not.

VP

 

[Mithras]

A policeman shows up at a bank hold up to find five eyewitnesses. Number one says the suspect is 5 10 blond and blue eyed, Number two states suspect is 5 6 dark haired and brown eyed, Number three states suspect was 6 3 and had an Afro, Number four describes suspect as a midget wearing a clown suit and Number five agrees with all. Besides being twisted to fit an agenda there is the human psychological aspect, how many times have you heard "Did you see that". Recently, a historian (Donald Groves) concluded that most battlefield eyewitness reports should be "taken with a grain of salt" for this exact reason. Though a little out of this exact theme a multitude of sourcing should be used. In the historical context radio/sigs logs seem to be the most accurate of any information sourcing about events. To historians the evidence only provides a theory which sometimes stands the test of time and at other times does not.

VP

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/55197/post-503921.html#msg503921

MOD EDIT: Your article is posted here in the locked thread

 

[Yrys]

Bruce Monkhouse post the respond of the soldier in that other thread...

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/55197.0.html

 

[RHFC_piper]

This is further evidence that we must think carefully about the content of our posts here.

In my own oppinion, I would personally question any news outlets reporting and researching skills if they resort to publishing unofficial and possibly questionable information from the internet.  Who knows (outside of the forums here) the validity of the member-in-questions eye witness account (I realize the Irony of posting this myself... ), and if it were any other member here, I would still question the validity of the information and research it further before publishing it anywhere public and official... I would even go as far as contacting the individual and requesting permission.

The beauty and the fault of the internet is that it grants people a sence of amnesty when voicing there oppinions.  Information from unofficial sources online should always be questioned... or at most, be used as a guide in research and not a lexicon.

It would be a scarry world if everything on the internet was fact, and it would be even more frightening if no one questioned it.

Kudos to the mods for catching the thread early and shutting down the speculation that was undoubtedly going to be rampant had it continued. 

Indeed... that was the point of my post on the subject in question.  Sometimes, especially in cases like this, it is probably best that we approach sensitive issues which currently have no resolution (in the media or otherwise) with more care in commenting and try to steer away from speculation.  The Mods did a good job with this one... it could have gotten much worse.

To be clear, I am not challenging the comment that was quoted nor questioning the author's right to post if he/she was there.  It is the second and third hand speculation that is dangerous.

As I've said above; I would question it (again, I see the irony), and to a degree I would believe it, but I would not officially print it without researching it.  And I agree about the second and third hand speculation... its not worth the trouble.


As a side note; I understand and appreciate the reason for the media quoting opinions from a forum dedicated to the forces in a story as home-hitting as this, but some discretion should be used when the topic is so sensitive... On both sides (Media and forums).  What would have happened if a more 'negative' opinion was posted by a serving member of the forces and subsequently printed...  It could inadvertently cost that member his career(Not that I'm concerned for my career or otherwise). And even though it would be fully his fault (for obvious reasons), the media source should take some responsibility and care when printing oppinions.... Espescially when doing so without consulting the source.


(This is my way of saying; DON'T QUOTE ME ON THIS!)

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

There is never anything off the record with the press.  In a perfect world the person being quoted would be consulted further but the media has never let that kinda thing get in the way of meeting their timeline.

 

[rmacqueen]

Unfortunately, in today's world, the competition to have the scoop tends to breed irresponsible journalism.  There was a time when upstanding journalists would not print speculation but that is not the case anymore.  In the rush to publish a story yellow journalism is quickly becoming the norm with stories made out of what, in reality, is not even a story.  Even the original story by Ms Blanchford is nothing but speculation with the only fact being about a soldier that broke under fire.  There are a number of things within the story that warrent further research but she chose to go with what was sensational rather than a story that actually had some meat to it.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Unfortunately, in today's world, the competition to have the scoop tends to breed irresponsible journalism.  There was a time when upstanding journalists would not print speculation but that is not the case anymore.  In the rush to publish a story yellow journalism is quickly becoming the norm with stories made out of what, in reality, is not even a story.  Even the original story by Ms Blanchford is nothing but speculation with the only fact being about a soldier that broke under fire.  There are a number of things within the story that warrent further research but she chose to go with what was sensational rather than a story that actually had some meat to it.

+1 to both RM & LWQ - if it's posted to a public forum that everyone posting knows is public, a journalist trying to meet deadline isn't going to ask permission to use a comment.  I think the best approach is like with e-mail:  don't write anything you wouldn't write on a postcard to the same person.

This is an example of one version of "balance" the media uses - one story with mostly one side in one news cycle, then another story with the other side in the next news cycle.  A couple of problems with this approach:

1)  I don't see the hard-copy edition of the Globe & Mail, but it would be interesting to see what page this story appeared on, compared to this one; and

2)  I've seen a variety of media outlets pick up the first story, but unless I'm missing something, I don't see the same outlets giving as much (if any) coverage to the other side of the story.  I've had experience with this, when the nasty story gets picked up from Canadian Press and spreads like wildfire to all sorts of media outlets, while the "rest of the story" version doesn't get as much coverage.

Balance?  Indeed...

 

[rmacqueen]

Thanks for posting the link to the second story, I had not read that.  Brings up a lot of questions given the ranks of those doing the complaining.

 

[Etienne]

Not only the ranks but also their military experience. The more of the time you have, the more you see things and understand why and how things are done.

Happy new year ( I know am early)

 

[The Bread Guy]

1)  I don't see the hard-copy edition of the Globe & Mail, but it would be interesting to see what page this story appeared on, compared to this one; .....

Just did a bit more digging on the G&M web page, and bought the weekend edition for a change of pace, and here's the details:

First story on alleged "deserter" - Page 1
Second story giving the other side from the soldier reported on - Page 7

Again, balance?  Fairness?

 

[GerryCan]

Not only the ranks but also their military experience. The more of the time you have, the more you see things and understand why and how things are done.

Well for one, Ward Engley has been in the Army for quite some time and has quite a large amount of operational experience. He knows what goes on within a section and I'm very sure he has a good understanding of how things are done.

Also the fact that a Lt. is also claiming the same thing against this guy sends off alarm bells to me, in essence, he could in fact be putting a lot on the line in saying this. Where as, a Pte may not suffer consequences of the same nature. And basically the whole section section is saying the same thing. I'm not choosing sides (although everything I hear from the guys I've talked to about it over there points in the same direction), but I honestly think we shouldn't look at it as 'He's not as experienced, so he doesn't know.'

The whole thing paints a bad picture and I'm sorry that it all came out in the wash, it doesn't just make one guy look bad, it reflects on all of us in 1RCR and maybe the whole battle group. The battle field is an extremely confusing place and until you experience it, it doesn't add up the same way. But, obviously these guys are very bitter about the whole ordeal, bitter enough to talk to the media about it. Let's just hope this is the end of it.

 

[22B]

This site belongs to you guys, and you should know by now that even though you use it pretty much responsibly, there is still a lot of stuff that sneaks through and ultimatley affects you, good or bad.  A lot of people don't know that this is not a genuine DND web site, it just looks like one.  DND is very aware of this site, but as long as nothing harmful or misleading is posted, they pretty much leave you alone, regardless of the visual simularity.  When you post questionable junk, like private contractors etc in foreign places, it just looks bad.  Maybe the wannabees like it, but it makes everything you do here look pretty amaturish.  I'm not saying the mods have to censor anything, but the posts should be looked at in a bigger picture.  Looks cool to the amature, but is it good for the site?  Remember the flame wars  with the journalists not that long ago.  Didn't need to happen, but it did. 

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Those "private contractors, etc" have as much right to be here in this PRIVATELY OWNED forum as anyone else.

Mr. Bobbitt can decide whom he invites or not.....
Thanks for your concern though.
Bruce

 

[DFW2T]

GerryCan...well said and spoken!
I personally know the said (ex) Sgt and shared a few Mooseheads with him when he was repatriated..as I was home at that time.     I'm on the fence..so to speak but I agree with you ...lets see what the "hotwash" brings out.  It's only for those who were there that can make an opinion or statement....but ...opinions said in haste/anger/fear/adrenaline..ect...should not have been published in the newspaper. IMO. ..I'm sure the boys are still reeling (and rightfully so)from this.  

I think the reporter "jumped on a hot scoop!"  with no regards for the soldiers nor the the public.

Just my 2...and my regards to you!

DFW2T

 

[DFW2T]

This site belongs to you guys, and you should know by now that even though you use it pretty much responsibly, there is still a lot of stuff that sneaks through and ultimatley affects you, good or bad.  A lot of people don't know that this is not a genuine DND web site, it just looks like one.  DND is very aware of this site, but as long as nothing harmful or misleading is posted, they pretty much leave you alone, regardless of the visual simularity.  When you post questionable junk, like private contractors etc in foreign places, it just looks bad.  Maybe the wannabees like it, but it makes everything you do here look pretty amaturish.  I'm not saying the mods have to censor anything, but the posts should be looked at in a bigger picture.  Looks cool to the amature, but is it good for the site?  Remember the flame wars  with the journalists not that long ago.  Didn't need to happen, but it did. 

Care to elaborate??? Maybe fill your profile out and this "PRVATE CONTRACTOR" will respond to your unfounded rant........ Jerk PLEASE!!!!
FULL STOP!

 

[Strike]

Even the original story by Ms Blanchford is nothing but speculation with the only fact being about a soldier that broke under fire.  There are a number of things within the story that warrent further research but she chose to go with what was sensational rather than a story that actually had some meat to it.

However, keep in mind that Ms Blanchford is also a member here and makes a point of asking our views before publishing anything from this site and is nothing like the reporter of the Chrinically Horrible, or other papers of the same ilk, who are trolling for a few good quotes.

Let's remember the topic of this thread please.  We seem to be getting back onto the subject that caused all the trouble in the first place wrt the media.