Is the "Fifth Column" at work in Canada ?

[George Wallace]

With some of the latest articles being printed in the Press here it makes one wonder if the "Fifth Column" at work in Canada ?

Articles like those found in these topics: "Canada sets up new military spy unit" and "Targeted killings" make one wonder what the Press is doing.  What do they think the CF is?  Do they seriously think that Canadian Forces have not been gathering "Intelligence" in their role in combating the Taliban?  Do they seriously think that Taliban "Leadership" is not targeted?  Have they been living under a rock somewhere?  Quoting so called "Experts" who have spent their lives well removed from any actual physical contact with the job or environment on which they are commenting on really is counterproductive. 

I don't have enough fingers and toes to count the times I have personally wondered aloud as to whether or not the Press is acting like a "Fifth Column" in sabotaging the work being done by Canada's Armed and Security Forces.  If they (the Press) are so much against "Big Brother" spying on the public with "Red Light Cameras" and "Security Camera", why do they become so hypocritical and demand to know the minutest details of matters of National Security?  Why are they so demanding that the "Defences" of the nation be open to public scrutiny?  In a way, they are the tools of the enemy in their quest to make all our methods of "Defence" and "Security" public knowledge.

Time for the Press to do some self-reflection on what they are really doing.

 

[OldSolduer]

I agree with you George.
The press will always claim "the public has a right to know".
Sometimes the public shouldn't know what goes on.
Sometimes we should publish the lists of atrocities these people are responsible for, then say, "well...we can't kill them because we'd be targetting indidviduals. Nor can we collect information on them because that' s so unfair."
The press would soon change its attitude.

 

[Haggis]

I agree with you George.
The press will always claim "the public has a right to know".
Sometimes the public shouldn't know what goes on.

In many cases if the public were to find out the truth of what really goes on in the wiorld and what the LEOs and security forces prevent from happening, it would scare the living shyte of of them.

Sometimes ignorance really is bliss.

 

[George Wallace]

In many cases if the public were to find out the truth of what really goes on in the wiorld and what the LEOs and security forces prevent from happening, it would scare the living shyte of of them.

Sometimes ignorance really is bliss.

During the Cold War, no Soviet Bombers tried to invade our "air space".  The only thing NORAD and our Fighters ever monitored was Santa Claus every Dec 24th on an annual basis.  :

During the Cold War, no Soviet submarines penetrated our Territorial Waters.  :

The "Millennium Bomber" was not trying to enter the United States from Canada.  :

17 fanatical Islamists were not arrested in Toronto.  :

Canadian soldiers are not digging wells, building roads, or any other form of "Reconstruction" in Afghanistan.  :

Too many people sleep too safely at night due to the extreme measures that a few men and women take to protect their "innocence" in their ignorance of what is really happening in a world that is not all hugs and kisses as they would seem to think.

 

[Bearpaw]

We have all heard "the pen is mightier than the sword" too many times to count :.  The problem as I see it is that there are very few
"journalists" wielding their pens in Afghanistan--far too often journalistic commentary emanates from comfortably fortified positions
in Canada >.  What is needed is more "real" journalists to actually go to Afghanistan and report what they see, not what they are told will sell papers or advertisements on TV.

Just my 2 cents.

Bearpaw

 

[stegner]

Well I agree with many of the comments here.  However, we should not simply put all the blame on the journalists but should also look to the CF's ability to articulate the message of their activities.  Winning the war in print in Canada is half the battle.  We are recruiting for a new HUMNIT unit- why not for a large Public Affairs and Relations unit? 

 

[George Wallace]

What I am seeing more of today are "Authors of Fiction", rather than real "Journalism".  

The Journalist who actually goes out to cover an event, in a dangerous location, is becoming a dying breed.  There still are some, but very few, who are actually 'on the ground' covering the story.  

It is interesting that all the radical Lefties/Anti-war crowd don't pay the Journalist in theatre, reporting from the scene, much heed.  They would rather listen to, and quote, someone who has never left the safety of their office or 'Ivory Tower'.  

 

[George Wallace]

Well I agree with many of the comments here.  However, we should not simply put all the blame on the journalists but should also look to the CF's ability to articulate the message of their activities.   Winning the war in print in Canada is half the battle.   We are recruiting for a new HUMNIT unit- why not for a large Public Affairs and Relations unit? 

Why not? 

Probably because this is old news.  It is an organization that has been in existence for some fifteen years. 

Next question would be; if you are going to create a Secret, why would you go out and publicize it?  Kinda defeats the purpose of it being Secret.

 

[Greymatters]

With some of the latest articles being printed in the Press here it makes one wonder if the "Fifth Column" at work in Canada ?

While there is evidence of 'fifth column'-like activity among anti-war/anti-globalization groups, is there any for indicating such activity among journalists and the media?  There's definately favortism and bias based on internal political beliefs and loyalties, but what would be proof of actions performed on behalf of an opposing country or international organization?

 

[kingyyz]

  If they (the Press) are so much against "Big Brother" spying on the public with "Red Light Cameras" and "Security Camera", why do they become so hypocritical and demand to know the minutest details of matters of National Security?  Why are they so demanding that the "Defences" of the nation be open to public scrutiny?

I don't think there is a clear case of hypocrisy here. One is a case of the government spying on the public, and the other is a case of the public spying on the government. The government serves the people and should be held responsible to public scrutiny. However, in the case of national defense there should be some exceptions, which the press aren't always willing to respect.

 

[stegner]

Why not?

Probably because this is old news.  It is an organization that has been in existence for some fifteen years.

Next question would be; if you are going to create a Secret, why would you go out and publicize it?  Kinda defeats the purpose of it being Secret.

Our wires have gotten crossed.  Could be my fault.  I am not talking about the HUMINT unit per se I was merely using it as an example of a specialized unity.  I am merely saying that if the CF can divert considerable resources to this new unit it should consider similar funding to a very very public Public Affairs and Relations Unit as both have very vital roles to play.  It would have to public to help reorient some of the media's general and even specific impressions of the CF. 

 

[dglad]

Unfortunately, "news" has become a commodity that has to be sold in a very competitive marketplace.  As a result, we end up with CNN covering the low-speed chase of a white Ford Bronco as it obeys every street law in the book...or, if you prefer a newer reference, endless coverage of the trials and tribulations of young celebrities as they ply themselves with booze, drugs and run-ins with the law.  The media happily latches onto anything that they believe will sell and, given the type of stuff they have to flog, that means anything lurid enough to cut through the noise of everyday life--an even taller order in the Internet age.  If it bleeds, it leads.  Or, as Don Henley put it:

We can do the innuendo
We can dance and sing
When its said and done we havent told you a thing
We all know that crap is king
Give us dirty laundry!

It's not as much about the media being anti-military, as it is about them being just about anti-anything that they think will sell.

 

[TrexLink]

The way I see it, most of them are really trying hard.  Woefully ignorant, easily swayed, but trying very hard to be fair.  Most of the time, most of them get most of it.

Then there were the vultures who sat in their a/c tent waiting for ramp ceremonies.  And the one who openly stated that the role of the press was to hunt out and release Top Secret information.  And the one who tried to get an inter-unit bunfight going, apparently just so he would have something to report on without risking his precious tush.

Then there are those - a few - as good as Christie Blatchford of The Globe and Mail. She's Good People in my books - scrupulously fair, hardworking and willing to head outside the wire to find out what is really going on.

Overall, I think that the success of any democracy depends on the citizenry being able to find out what is going on. One of the first things any dictator does is to move to control the media. So, despite being tempted to steer some of them into unmarked minefields, I can live with the presence of the press.  The really biased ones identify themselves very quickly and get ignored, which for a reporter is worse than death.  The good ones, at the risk of being called cynical, can be used to spread the good word.  After all, if the military is as good as it says it is and thinks it is, then there should be no grief with the public seeing and hearing about the good they are doing - provided it does not breach security, of course.

In this case, the self-serving Bytown whooping and wailing might have been expected. The fact that the mere existence of such a unit is known hardly puts anybody at risk; the TB are already as paranoid as a mouse at a car convention anyway.

 

[40below]

I'm not quite sure what your point is, George, except you didn't like what you read in the paper and you needed to vent.

Like it or not, freedom of the press is part of our constitution, to argue that anyone who exercises that legal right in a legal manner that does not breach the provisions of the Official Secrets Act or any other law of the country is by your definition a traitor to Canada - a 'Fifth Columnist' in your words, or a traitor on the home soil to which they are presumed to be loyal - seems a curious and rather over-the-top argument. We don't live in North Korea.

The HUMINT article revealed not a shred of operational detail except that yeah, it exists and the targeted killing one was basically an opinion piece on whether it works or not. You probably didn't like the tone but that doesn't make it treason. And there was far less revealed to violate OPSEC and details on how the CF operates in Afghanistan than a careful reader could cull from Blatchford's 14 Days or her or DiManno's columns from Afghanistan. Should they be in jail with the rest of the traitors?

Branding journalists as Fifth Columnists who loathe our troops is akin to the lefties characterizing all members of the Canadian Forces in Afghanistan as trigger-happy killers. It just isn't a convincing argument.

 

[Blindspot]

I'm not quite sure what your point is, George, except you didn't like what you read in the paper and you needed to vent.

Not to speak for George; he can correct me if I'm wrong:

His point is that the lies, false supposition and reliance of suspect 'experts' used by the media is purposefully crafted in some cases to undermine the Canadian Forces and the foreign policies of the government, acting like the propaganda arm of the enemy to influence Canadians.

What's so hard to understand?

Branding journalists as Fifth Columnists who loathe our troops is akin to the lefties characterizing all members of the Canadian Forces in Afghanistan as trigger-happy killers. It just isn't a convincing argument.

You act like it doesn't happen.

 

[TrexLink]

Again, I think that the majority of the media reps you will see in the field are as honest as can be expected.  That they rely on false 'experts' is hardly surprising. The journalistic ethic tells them that stories must always be balanced. Given that soldiers and veterans generally stick together, who do they turn to for that 'balance'?  Generally, it's somebody suspicious of the military and the way it does business - be it a sociology prof or an Ottawa publisher...  It's not that they are trying to lie - they just don't know the difference.

What happens when the story hits the editor's desk is another issue of course...

 

[armyvern]

I'm not quite sure what your point is, George, except you didn't like what you read in the paper and you needed to vent.

Like it or not, freedom of the press is part of our constitution, to argue that anyone who exercises that legal right in a legal manner that does not breach the provisions of the Official Secrets Act or any other law of the country is by your definition a traitor to Canada - a 'Fifth Columnist' in your words, or a traitor on the home soil to which they are presumed to be loyal - seems a curious and rather over-the-top argument. We don't live in North Korea.

The HUMINT article revealed not a shred of operational detail except that yeah, it exists and the targeted killing one was basically an opinion piece on whether it works or not. You probably didn't like the tone but that doesn't make it treason. And there was far less revealed to violate OPSEC and details on how the CF operates in Afghanistan than a careful reader could cull from Blatchford's 14 Days or her or DiManno's columns from Afghanistan. Should they be in jail with the rest of the traitors?

Branding journalists as Fifth Columnists who loathe our troops is akin to the lefties characterizing all members of the Canadian Forces in Afghanistan as trigger-happy killers. It just isn't a convincing argument.

Some have already spoken to your post, but I've a question for you given a look back through your posts --

Any biasness applicable on your part? Professional or otherwise?

 

[Osotogari]

The articles in question show just how many in the national media think.  It's a fact that most faculties or arts departments overwhelmingly consist of aging boomers looking to wave their freak flag once more before dimensia starts to set in. It should come as no surprise that there have been a couple of generations of journalism graduates that have been indoctrinated accordingly. 

 

[40below]

Some have already spoken to your post, but I've a question for you given a look back through your posts --

Any biasness applicable on your part? Professional or otherwise?

Sure is. If you look at the last post on the previous page, you'll see a poster boldly asserting that the press is an agent, willing or not, of The Enemy, i.e., the Taliban. The Canadian media may receive a covert morning briefing from a Mullah in the mountains of Pakistan, but I have to say, unlike many of the posters here, I've seen no evidence of it. Would make a hell of a story, though.

 

[armyvern]

Sure is. If you look at the last post on the previous page, you'll see a poster boldly asserting that the press is an agent, willing or not, of The Enemy, i.e., the Taliban. The Canadian media may receive a covert morning briefing from a Mullah in the mountains of Pakistan, but I have to say, unlike many of the posters here, I've seen no evidence of it. Would make a hell of a story, though.

Sure you don't.

You see biasness of the military member of course against the media and apparently want to point it out.

But don't see any from your side of the fence against the miltary member by the media.

Funny how that works on both sides of the fence eh? Just pointing that out.