Media Bias [Merged]

[George Wallace]

Heretic!  Those were peacemaking and R2P missions...  :nod:

For which you were entitled to the Canadian Peacekeeping Service Medal (CPSM).

 

[The Bread Guy]

Sadly, those who spew tripe like that picture are hoping that others don't actually fact check the figures or seek the truth.

Let's take a moment to check the UN Peacekeeping Statistics from a reputable source, like...oh, I don't know...let's go out on a limb and consider using the UN Peacekeeping Statistics archive site: http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/resources/statistics/contributors_archive.shtml

And let's look at a period from, let's say, 1990 to 2015 and see if the people who fabricated that photo (either 'accidentally' or deceitfully) were even close to any shred of truth in their efforts to demonize Stephen Harper compared to Paul Martin, or Jean Chretien or even Brian Mulroney:


2015 - #1 Bangladesh 9398,  #68 Canada 112
2014 - #1 Bangladesh 9400,  #68 Canada 113
2013 - #1 Pakistan 8266,  #61 Canada 115
2012 - #1 Pakistan 8967,  #55 Canada 150
2011 - #1 Bangladesh 10394,  #54 Canada 190
2010 - #1 Pakistan 10652,  #53 Canada 198
2009 - #1 Pakistan 10764,  #56 Canada 170
2008 - #1 Pakistan 11135,  #49 Canada 179
2007 - #1 Pakistan 10610,  #58 Canada 149
2006 - #1 Pakistan 9867,    #69 Canada 132

2005 - #1 Bangladesh 9529,  #32 Canada 387
2004 - #1 Pakistan 8140,  #34 Canada 314

2003 - #1 Pakistan 6248,  #38 Canada 233 (note: now invading Iraq and USA is still #22 at 518)
2002 - #1 Pakistan 4677,  #31 Canada 263 (note: still doing the 9/11 thing, USA was #19 at 631)
2001 - #1 Bangladesh 6010,  #32 Canada 295 (note: even doing the 9/11 thing, USA was #18 at 750)
2000 - #1 Nigeria 3523,  #25 Canada 568 (note: 'Big Satan'/USA was #14 at 885)
1999 - #1 Poland 1039,  #15 Canada 291 (note: 'Big Satan'/USA was #10 at 619)
1998 - #1 Poland 1053,  #17 Canada 265 (note: 'Big Satan'/USA was #8 at 681)
1997 - #1 Poland 1084,  #19 Canada 254 (note: 'Big Satan'/USA was #10 at 644)
1996 - #1 WTF?!? USA...really???  ??? Yup...2449,  #11 Canada 956
1995 - #1 Pakistan 8795,  #6 Canada 2585
1994 - #1 Pakistan 9110,  #7 Canada 2811
1993 - #1 France 6370,  #7 Canada 2808

1992 - #1 France 6502,  #3 Canada 3285

1991 - #1 Finland 1006, #2 Canada 971
1990 - #1 Canada 1002 (the last time Canada was ever the #1 contributor)


So...the graphic should actually show "Lyin' Brian" as the last PM to have been the #1 contributor to UN Peacekeeping.  Five years later, 'Ptit gars from Shawinigan had busted Canada double digits down the list as USA soared like an eagle to #1.  For the rest of Chrétien's tenure, Canada was always behind the USA, usually less than half the peacekeepers provided from south of the border.  Paul Martin takes over from Chrétien and starts to work things back up, almost doubling the peacekeepers that Chrétien left behind.  Stephen Harper took over and Canada ramped up capability in AFG and about halved its peacekeepers from Martin's days.

So, to summarize...

- Canada was #1 under Mulroney
- Chrétien let Canada slide from #3 to #38...nicely done, dude from same party as "Peacekeeping Pearson." :slow clap:
- Martin reversed Chrétien's slide and raised Canada from #38 to #32, even as we were ramping up in AFG.
- Harper let peacekeeping slide from #32 to #68 and 275 less peacekeepers than in Martin's last year.

i.e.  That photo/meme is pure BS.  Those sheeple who pass that kind of patently mal-informed stuff on without critically thinking for themselves should at least be a little embarrassed...

:2c:

G2G

You da MAN - thanks for the digging/sharing.

 

[Good2Golf]

You da MAN - thanks for the digging/sharing.

Milnews.ca, you're indeed welcome, but if by 'digging' you mean, "clicking on a few links on the official UN website and typing a bit," it wasn't that hard...the data was all there readily accessible to the entire public...well, the public that doesn't have a closed mind and is willing to investigate even a little...unless of course their mission is to deliberately deceive.  :nod:

Cheers,
G2G

 

[PuckChaser]

Fantastic data diving, milpoints inbound.

 

[The Bread Guy]

...well, the public that doesn't have a closed mind and is willing to investigate even a little...unless of course their mission is to deliberately deceive.  :nod:

Cheers,
G2G

Dare to dream .... milpoints inbound (once I figure out why I can't award any).

 

[MarkOttawa]

Keep in mind that the CF's big peacekeeping contribution during the first half of the 1990s was to UNPROFOR in former Yugo; in 1995 and on into mid-2000s that simply morphed in NATO missions in B-H, Macedonia involving significant number of "peacekeeping" ("peace enforcement"?) personnel: IFOR, SFOR, KFOR:

1) http://www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/remembrance/history/canadian-armed-forces/balkans

2) http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/news/article.page?doc=canadian-forces-operations-in-bosnia-herzegovina/hnps1u07

3) http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dhh-dhp/od-bdo/di-ri-eng.asp?IntlOpId=96&CdnOpId=110

Mark
Ottawa

 

[George Wallace]

How soon we sweep Somalia under the rug.  >

 

[Kirkhill]

Forgot a couple Mark  (you beat me to it George)

http://www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/remembrance/history/canadian-armed-forces/somalia

http://www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/remembrance/history/canadian-armed-forces/rwanda

So:

In 1991, under the UN Mulroney sends Canada into Yugo.

In 1992, under the UN Mulroney sends Canada into Somalia.

In 1993, under the UN Mulroney sends Canada into Rwanda

In 1993 the Medak Pocket (doesn't) happen and Shidane Arone is killed and Chretien becomes PM

In 1994 Rwandan massacres occur

In 1995 Chretien decides to pack up and go home and disbands the Canadian Airborne Regiment in disgrace while sucking back from Yugo, Rwanda and Somalia and anything that looked like them.




In 1999 under the UN Chretien goes to East Timor

In 2001 Chretien goes to Afghanistan under the UN and with NATO (UN authorized but not commanded)

In 2003 Chretien is retired and Martin continues in Afghanistan

In 2005 Martin shifts Canada to Kandahar

In 2006 Harper becomes PM

In 2011 Harper withdraws from Kandahar

In 2014 Harper withdraws from Afghanistan

 

[MarkOttawa]

Kirkhill,

East Timor: "UN-authorized, Australian-led multinational force", i.e, not "UN peacekeeping" as such:
http://www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/remembrance/history/canadian-armed-forces/easttimor

Then there was Eritrea, "real" UN peacekeeping, six months 2001-2:
http://www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/remembrance/history/canadian-armed-forces/ethiopia

Those do fall within the post-1995 period I was considering.  By the way NATO did not take over ISAF until 2003:
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_69366.htm

And our six-month 2002 regular forces Kandahar mission was only loosely, not specifically, UNSC-authorized--"Following the terrorist attacks on the United States on 11 September 2001, the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 1368 condemning the attacks and supporting international efforts to root out terrorism in Afghanistan."
http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/operations-abroad-past/cafla.page

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Kirkhill]

Kirkhill,

East Timor: "UN-authorized, Australian-led multinational force", i.e, not "UN peacekeeping" as such:
http://www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/remembrance/history/canadian-armed-forces/easttimor

Then there was Eritrea, "real" UN peacekeeping, six months 2001-2:
http://www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/remembrance/history/canadian-armed-forces/ethiopia

Those do fall within the post-1995 period I was considering.  By the way NATO did not take over ISAF until 2003:
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_69366.htm

And our six-month 2002 regular forces Kandahar mission was only loosely, not specifically, UNSC-authorized--"Following the terrorist attacks on the United States on 11 September 2001, the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 1368 condemning the attacks and supporting international efforts to root out terrorism in Afghanistan."
http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/operations-abroad-past/cafla.page

Mark
Ottawa

Fair comment. 

However all of the missions were fig-leafed by the UN - ultimately they were stability operations designed to maintain or reinstate the status quo ante.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Kirkhill: Quite, but keep in mind that the complainers are bemoaning the large decline in Canada's contributions to UN-run operations, which for them ideologically are the only ones that count.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Good2Golf]

Kirkhill: Quite, but keep in mind that the complainers are bemoaning the large decline in Canada's contributions to UN-run operations, which for them ideologically are the only ones that count.

:nod:

Yup, the UN missions seem to have to be of the blue ball-cap wearing, handing out candies and caring for babies type missions.  UNSC resolution-approved isn't warm and fuzzy enough, it would seem.

 

[Kirkhill]

Kirkhill: Quite, but keep in mind that the complainers are bemoaning the large decline in Canada's contributions to UN-run operations, which for them ideologically are the only ones that count.

Mark
Ottawa

Point taken

So - that seems to suggest that the Highwater mark was reached under Mulroney and that Chretien turned Canada isolationist.

 

[Good2Golf]

So - that seems to suggest that the Highwater mark was reached under Mulroney and that Chretien turned Canada isolationist.

  :nod:

Ironic, isn't it?  (and not in an Alanis Morissette kind of way... ;D )

 

[MarkOttawa]

Kirkhill: Thee hee--but not "isolationist", rather "militarist" ,

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Kirkhill]

Kirkhill: Thee hee--but not "isolationist", rather "militarist" ,

Mark
Ottawa

I think, rather, JC was 'isolationist".  It took Paul Martin to create a "militarist" Canada.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Kirkhill: Just putting things as those who decry lack of UN peacekeeping should do if had any intellectual consistency (bombing Kosovo/Serbia with NATO and no UNSC mandate, quelle horreur!)--JC abandoned UN for, gasp, NATO!  And then PM Martin took us into, gasp. combat (though JC did that briefly in 2002 though not much action).

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Kirkhill]

Kirkhill: Just putting things as those who decry lack of UN peacekeeping should do if had any intellectual consistency (bombing Kosovo/Serbia with NATO and no UNSC mandate, quelle horreur!)--JC abandoned UN for, gasp, NATO!  And then PM Martin took us into, gasp. combat (though JC did that briefly in 2002 though not much action).

Mark
Ottawa

Seen.

 

[Edward Campbell]

David Akin, in a column in the Toronto Sun which is reproduced here under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act, excoriates the CBC for not broadcasting leaders' debates not hosted by the so-called consortium:

http://www.torontosun.com/2015/09/30/shame-on-cbc-brass-for-debate-failures

Shame on CBC brass for debate failures

BY DAVID AKIN, PARLIAMENTARY BUREAU CHIEF

FIRST POSTED: WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, 2015

Even as their reporters were proving once again Monday night that CBC journalists are as good as any in the world by winning an international Emmy for coverage of the Ebola outbreak in Africa, CBC’s management was letting them — and the Canadian public — down once again by failing to broadcast yet another leaders’ debate in this election campaign.

Monday’s debate has been universally praised as one of the best campaign debates in more than 50 years. But CBC chose to put Coronation Street on its main network. On its news channel, there was chit chat about commodity prices.

Meanwhile on CPAC — god bless it — Stephen Harper, Thomas Mulcair, and Justin Trudeau engaged in two hours of lively, informative debate about some of the most important foreign policy, defence, and development issues of our time.

If Trudeau wins this thing, that debate will be seen as a turning point.

The organizers of the debate had offered the broadcast feed free to anyone who wanted to use it. And yet, CBC shrugged.

There’s one more debate in this campaign, Friday night from Montreal, hosted and broadcast by the biggest French-language privately-owned network in the country, TVA. But CBC will skip that one, too.

And so, by campaign’s close, CBC’s sorry record will be broadcasting just one debate out of five, and that was a French language one only offered in translation to its English-language viewers.

Many blame CBC’s failure to broadcast these debates on the Conservatives for that party’s decision not to participate in any debate hosted by the so-called broadcast consortium of CBC, CTV, and Global. That’s a separate issue. Yes, the Conservatives could have done a “consortium” debate as well as others.

But even if there was a consortium debate, the public broadcaster should have committed to airing all debates regardless and done so on its main network.

Others say CBC should be under no obligation to put something on its network over which it has no editorial control. Except, of course, it does that all winter with its most most watched program, Hockey Night In Canada. It is Rogers Communications, not the CBC, who decides on the talent, sets, lighting, direction and so on for HNIC.

CBC also (rightly) broadcasts hours a week of the unedited, unfiltered live-to-air speeches and media scrums of campaigning politicians, more content over which CBC has no editorial control.

When they return to Parliament, MPs should do something about this by requiring CBC to broadcast all leaders’ debates. This is not an argument for threatening CBC’s funding. But its political overseers are well within their rights to insist CBC spend some of the nearly $1 billion a year it gets from Canadians on what even CBC executives itself have said is a vital public service.

In May, CBC editor-in-chief Jennifer McGuire said, “It's important that Canadians across the country, in both French and English, have an opportunity before they cast their vote, to see party leaders, live and face-to-face, debate the future direction of the country.”

I agree. But it’s not so important, apparently, for McGuire and the CBC brass if Canadians can’t see them do it on CBC.

When they get back to work, MPs ought to change that view of things.

I agree with Mr Akin.

 

[Remius]

David Akin, in a column in the Toronto Sun which is reproduced here under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act, excoriates the CBC for not broadcasting leaders' debates not hosted by the so-called consortium:

http://www.torontosun.com/2015/09/30/shame-on-cbc-brass-for-debate-failures

I agree with Mr Akin.

Did any of the big three actually broadcast it?