War Correspondent Howto

[mdh]

GonzoScribe,

Interesting post, as a former reporter myself I know where you are coming from.   Although I am in the minority here, I don't really have anything against Scott Taylor. However the amount of animus the man inspires on this board is noteworthy. He may have a schtick as the Voice of the Common Soldier but self-promotion is the only way to get ahead in a competitive industry like journalism.

My view of media coverage of the CF is that one man's "expert" is another man's misinformed boob when we happen to disagree with his or her viewpoint.   After all what defines a military "expert" anyway? Even a guy with solid military credentials like Lew Mackenzie has been criticized on this site for being out of touch. A Cpl with 20 years experience in the trenches may be declared a "military expert", but some smart-*** will then dismiss him as not having any strategic expertise and is therefore unworthy of commenting on geo-political military issues.

In fact, almost every Cdn military writer out there has been subjected to one attack or another here - whether a journalist, Gwen Dyer or Scott Taylor. All of these writers have different credentials, but I don't think that's the real issue when it comes to media coverage.   We all like to feel ourselves as truly "expert" since we think we are the ones closest to the action or more aware of today's reality in the CF.  But being too close to the ground can also undermine our ability to see things from 30,000 feet.

We can get too caught up or preoccupied with the a narrow military viewpoint and forget that the public does not understand military nuances - whose importance we may in any case may exaggerating. Overall I think there is a lot more quality reporting out there today about the CF than at any other time in the past 20 years since I've followed CF issues closely in the media. Yes, there may be negative stories about equipment failures or the latest NDHQ boondoggle, but I would suggest those kinds of stories help keep the political heat up. The media is at last paying some attention to us - we have to take advantage of that development, and use it to our advantage, cheers, mdh

 

[GonzoScribe]

mdh, I couldn't agree more.  To be considered a "military expert" that satisfies the public, the brass and the guys on the ground (or air, or sea) would be most uncommon if not impossible.  Most folk in general, and, in this case, in the military, haven't a clue what a journo goes through when he chases a story from a tip.  The amount of "steering" that happens is inevitable.  When a general's staffer tries to get a story out and the journalist decides to try to get more sides to the story, all hell breaks lose when the journo goes to interview soldiers who deliver a totally different version of the story.  Now he/she has to delve deeper to find the "truth" and piss off both sides by seeking a third and fourth corner to square the story.  In my experience, nobody is more bloodthirsty and vicious to reporters than soldier's who feel poorly served or even betrayed by a reporter.

Of course, there are lousy reporters out there as well.  To me, they would be the ones who print the story almost verbatim to the press release without any supporting and opposing interviews.  You can't just tell one side of the story.  In the attempt to strike a balance, you can make many enemies.

Case in point, a report released from the University of Miami  that accuses the UN, in particular US, France and Canada of aiding in the overthrow of a democratically-elected (albeit corrupt as hell) government, probably as democratically elected as GWB in the US.  As well, it explains how UN, in providing support to the Haitian police as they go into Cite Soleil and iindiscriminately shoot and kill innocents in the hunt for armed gangs.  The wounded, who appear in hospital later, are taken away from the hospital by police and later found in the dumping grounds by the airport.  Nobody wants to go to hospital if they get wounded so there's a lot of septic wounds going untreated.

I don't necessarily agree with the report, but I do have to read it and then check its sources.  And I also have to realize, whether I like it or not, there's a lot of people in Haiti and around the world who do agree with it.  Is it the truth?  Who knows.  But we don't just discredit it and throw it away because we don't like the source or the content.

After to hearing conflicting stories in the Haitian community in Montreal, I thought I would post a question in  the Army Current Affairs & News forum. Methinks it was not well received.  Link for thesummary and report at the bottom of this post.  It is far too easy to be far away from the scene when your soldiers are over there and only want to hear positive things about what we are doing.  I can't imagine what it would be like to be a journalist in the currently ultra-nationalist US to come across a lead on a negative story.  To even try to check into the authenticity of the lead would invite charges of treason and threats from the flag-waving populous.  In any military forum there may be a few laying in wait for the unsuspecting left-leaner who may expect a little more intellectual dialogue on a difficult issue and a lot less rhetoric.  Surprise, surprise.  These are difficult times indeed.

GonzoScribe


- CENTER FOR THE STUDY OF HUMAN RIGHTS UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI SCHOOL OF LAW
Professor Irwin P. Stotzky, Director
HAITI HUMAN RIGHTS INVESTIGATION: NOVEMBER 11-21, 2004
By Thomas M. Griffin, Esq.
http://www.miami.edu/UMH/CDA/UMH_Main/1,1770,2593-1;34089-3,00.html

 

[Mike Bobbitt]

Folks,

First, let me apologize for the heavy-handed edits in some of the above posts. While we at Army.ca generally pride ourselves as being an open forum for ranging discussions, I have been asked by Scott Taylor to remove some of the unfavourable remarks about him. While he threatened legal action, let me be clear: comments were removed because they were inappropriate, not because Army.ca is bowing to pressure from Mr. Taylor. In fact, as anyone know knows me will attest, I'm more than happy to cooperate when approached politely on an issue, which is all that's required.

Though it may be meant in the vein of poking fun a a public figure, we still have to adhere to the Conduct Guidelines in our posts here. Mr. Taylor's choice to remain absent from discussions will likely not quell any questions or ill feelings towards him, but that doesn't make it open season. Nobody should be forced to post here in order to defend themselves from libel.

Bottom line: Stating an opinion is generally OK, however let's not perpetuate rumour, myth or libel in our posts here. I believe there is enough fact around to keep the discussions lively without sacrificing the quality of the site.

Sorry for the interruption.


Cheers
Mike

 

[Infanteer]

Well, now that the cat is out of the bag.

Mr. Taylor, we know you read these forums and take offence to the general attitude towards your slant on defence and military affairs in Canada.   Instead of using veiled threats to the Site Owner everytime your views are challenged by those here who have Been There and Done That, why don't you sign up as a member on Army.ca and defend the material you so eager to dump onto the Canadian public.

Signed,

Infanteer,
valued Esprit de Corps reader for all of 5 minutes....

 

[camochick]

Infanteer I agree. I have to say that it would be great to have Scott Taylor on here to defend his views. That way the people who really do the soldiering can defend their point of view as well as Mr. Taylor. Unfortunately as I am learning in the world of journalism no matter how not one sided they try to be it sometimes comes off that way. It would be great to hear both sides of the story this time.

 

[Torlyn]

Pursuant to my question, I'm wondering if any of you service members know whether or not I can apply under the Freedom of Information act to see a previously serving member's service record?  I'm not sure if anyone knows, but it might be kind of interesting to find out...

T

 

[camochick]

Last time I checked the person had to be dead for atleast 20 years before you can get their record. GO to the veteran affairs website and i think they have links to the form. I am trying to get my grampies records but you have to have a death certificate and so far my father has not produced one for me. They have all the info on the veterans affairs site though.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Pursuant to my question, I'm wondering if any of you service members know whether or not I can apply under the Freedom of Information act to see a previously serving member's service record?   I'm not sure if anyone knows, but it might be kind of interesting to find out...

T

It's the Access to Information Act [Federal] which must read in context with the Privacy Act [Federal] and yes, in certain circumstances, you can get some details such as rank, postings, training etc.

LOL, call Colonel (Ret'd) Drapeau, he writes an annual publication on the subject. The book is available from Carswell. Cheers.

 

[mdh]

Interesting development here,

For what's it worth, my experience with reporters (20 years worth on both the light and dark sides of the trade) is that they are notoriously thin-skinned and insecure when their work is criticized. cheers, mdh

 

[Mike Bobbitt]

It's an understandable and human reaction, really. You put a lot of effort into something, finally get it to the point where you feel it's ready for public consumption, and invariably people tear it apart. (I've done tech writing for some trade magazines in the past, and had all manner of feedback.)

It's how the author responds to the criticism (whether it's constructive, abusive or somewhere in between) that tends to leave people with a lasting impression though...

 

[2 Cdo]

I feel vindicated by the fact that my post was edited. It only confirmed what I already knew about said individual. When confronted by the truth about your past, threaten with a lawsuit!  What a loser!

 

[mdh]

It's an understandable and human reaction, really. You put a lot of effort into something, finally get it to the point where you feel it's ready for public consumption, and invariably people tear it apart. (I've done tech writing for some trade magazines in the past, and had all manner of feedback.)

Ah yes, the pleasures of editorial re-writes - I've had more than a few of those myself.   I just dismissed my editors as the swinish rabble they were and took comfort in my unrecognized literary genius - didn't they bloody well know they had a Canadian Tom Wolfe in their midst?.   8)

 

[Pieman]

Indeed, an interesting thread.

why don't you sign up as a member on Army.ca and defend the material you so eager to dump onto the Canadian public.

I have a funny feeling he could be posting here already under a alias.   <Pieman glances around suspiciously>

I believe one of the major problems with journalists is not simply a biased attitude (too broad of a brush?), but they have difficulty explaining situations because they do not fully understand the situation themselves and end up getting it wrong.

For example, one of my colleges was the first to do seismic analysis on a extrasolar star. He got on CNN and was in the papers for a brief stint. We examined all of the articles put out by different medias, and all of them got it totally wrong. One news paper said he had discovered a galaxy, another said that he studied 'earthquakes' on the sun. Pretty ridiculous. I feel my college was in part responsible for the errors, as he found it difficult to explain his work to the uninitiated. (Understandably so, I think)

This situation alludes to war correspondants as well. They don't fully understand the workings of the CF because they are not involved, so they come to some rather erroneous conclusions. Likewise, perhaps the CF is possibly not communicating the situation effectively to the media?

I will quote From Stephen Baxter's Space : "It is so hard to talk to you, when you know nothing!"  

I have not read much of Scott Taylor's work. Do people here feel he gets information wrong, or is just biased in his articles? Or both? (If you can answer without upsetting Scott so he has a hissy fit and tries to sue Army.ca, then please do so.)

 

[mdh]

Hi Pieman,

Two points here:

When it comes to science reporting the media have a tough time translating scientific complexities into easy to understand prose or pictures.   There just isn't a lot of space in 800 words or a 30-second clip to tell complicated stories in sufficient detail. Journalists themselves are sometimes ill-equipped to understand the material or don't have the time - especially when a daily deadline is looming.

Or we should also keep in mind that some researchers have an agenda, and they are all too willing to manipulate reporters.   Some of the current reporting on global warming provides a good example of ideologically inspired research. The National Post has done good work in exposing some of it.   Drug companies are another culprit.

As for the CF, my somewhat limited experience as PAFFO within a unit located in 39 Brigade has indicated to me that there isn't a lot of resources available to do a good job with proactive media relations - (or even reactive for that matter).   Each unit is pretty much left to itself when it comes to public affairs (with some occassional help from Brigade).   All too often soldiers are assigned to public affairs as Unit Information Officer (UIOs) with little or no training. Under those circumstances public affairs can often be an afterthought, cheers, mdh

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

http://www.herald.ns.ca/stories/2005/02/07/fOpinion133.raw.html

Just so Scott doesn't think I'm stealing from him, here is a link to his newest thoughts on the media and military.

 

[George Wallace]

I see he doesn't have any problems slagging the Military.   I also noticed how he slammed the military, but protected himself from slander by attributing all his slanderous remarks to Stephen Thorne.   Neat trick.   Then there is this comment:  

These observations and criticisms parallel my experiences with Canadian Forces brass and public affairs branch over the past 16 years. But it is refreshing to learn that I was not being singled out.

Is that journalism?   Sounds more like a fine "Whine" to me.  NO; actually "Sour Grapes".

GW

 

[Cloud Cover]

"Antagonizing and marginalizing even the "military-friendly" media can hardly be considered a sound strategy for such an already politically neglected department.

Right now, the Canadian Forces need every friend they can find, and the rank and file deserves better representation than they are getting from public affairs officers such as Dionne and generals who shun reporters."

First of all, Thorne and Taylor labelling themselves both as media "friends" of the military lacks any plausible air of reality. With friends like Taylor, who needs enemies? Anyways, I would think Dionne has been cussed down by better people than those two.

Scotty T. - PM me and we can have a little chat.   

 

[GGboy]

George Wallace: Quoting someone else is no defence against libel. Unless it's covered under privilege (ie: something said in Parliament, testimony in court or a judicial inquiry, etc.) if I quote you saying something libellous about, oh let's say Scott Taylor  ;D, then he could turn around and sue both you and me. All he has to prove is that it injured his reputation, we would then have to prove either a) that it was true; b) that it was fair comment on the truth; c) that it was covered under privilege (see above); or d) that we had his permission to libel him.

As for the larger question, I'm increasingly frustrated by the CF's media relations these days (and no, I'm not Scott Taylor writing pseudonymously) After an excellent start in Roto 0 or Op Athena in Afghanistan, which got the army almost unprecedented numbers of stories and a huge public profile boost, they seem to have begun slowly slipping back to the bad old days.
Mr. Taylor aside, it's incredibly important to the CF to raise its public profile if it wants to avoid going the way of the dodo. The only way politicians or bureaucrats are going to be convinced to reverse the downward trend in defence funding is by public pressure and the only way that pressure is going to be created is through efforts such as the embedding initiative introduced for Op Apollo. Anyone who obstructs or undermines these efforts is doing a grave disservice to the entire CF.
As for difficulties dealing with journalists, unfortunately that's the nature of the beast: if the CF wants to improve the quality of the military coverage it gets then it's going to have to bite the bullet and start educating reporters, and treating the handful who know about the military and don't have an axe to grind better than they do currently.

 

[Torlyn]

All he has to prove is that it injured his reputation, we would then have to prove either a) that it was true; b) that it was fair comment on the truth; c) that it was covered under privilege (see above); or d) that we had his permission to libel him.

Hmm...  Wouldn't one have to have a reputation to begin with? 

I find it interesting that the only reason he doesn't like Hillier is because he (Hillier) wouldn't treat the media the way the media wanted to be treated in a WAR ZONE.  Now, as an uninitiated CF wanna-be, I gotta tell you that were I overseas in any capacitiy as a civvy (reporter, let's say) I sure as hell wouldn't be shitting on the people that are trying to keep me alive.  IF they tell me "go here, do that" you know what?  By god, I'm gonna do it.  Freedom of the Press?  Isn't that a fundamental AMERICAN right?  I don't recall it being in our Charter, do you? 

Oh, and for those watching, my request for the record of an ex-CF member went through to the access to information co-ordinator today.  I'll let y'all know how that goes.

T

 

[mdh]

Good morning gents (at least it's morning here),

Would any one have a copy of the Stephen Thorne piece? I would like to see the original before I jump to any conclusions.


As for the larger question, I'm increasingly frustrated by the CF's media relations these days (and no, I'm not Scott Taylor writing pseudonymously) After an excellent start in Roto 0 or Op Athena in Afghanistan, which got the army almost unprecedented numbers of stories and a huge public profile boost, they seem to have begun slowly slipping back to the bad old days.

Good post GGBoy, are you finding this frustration manifesting itself in your unit, through Brigade or at other levels? I'm interested in getting more detail - PAFFO professional interest on my part, cheers, mdh