CBC attempts more anti military spin

[Teeps74]

What alternative would you propose? If the CBC turned into Fox News and only ran "The Canadian military can do no wrong" stories that would be just as bad as a completely anti-military editorial stance.

The CBC posts positive stories about the mission in Afghanistan? Well, on occasion they do (I'm shocked too, but these "good" stories get no where near the same play as anything bleeding).

As an example:

CBC News In Depth: Afghanistan (A "backgrounder" if you will)

The article above is interesting, and comes across to me as a unbiased, information, type piece.

Another piece being carried by the CBC, is a series of articles by Sgt. Russell Storring:

Russell Storring

It would appear that he only reports with the CBC when he is deployed (I could be wrong, no time to search just yet, but I will). It's more of a blog type deal.

I've seen a lot of bias from a conservative pro-military standpoint (for obvious reasons) on this board. That's all well and good but it's a little hypocritical to accuse the media of bias when many of you are guilty of the same thing from the other side. Yes, the military is doing a lot of good in Afghanistan but there have also been some moments we should not be so proud of. The public has a right to be informed about both. And for the most part, I think the CBC has achieved that goal.

It is not hypocritical of us to have and maintain our bias, as we do not propose that we are not biased. The very nature of this site (army.ca, milnet.ca et al) specifically implies that there will be a strong pro-military bias here.

The problem with the CBC that causes us to believe that the CBC has a specific bias, is the weighting of stories by the CBC.

YES. The CBC as a news entity has a duty to report the news, the good, and the bad. What we see though is the stereotypical "If it bleeds, it leads" approach.

Yes, when we screw up, it should be front page news. Tragic and painful yes. Hurtful to us? Yes. But necessary in our society, and we all understand this.

It would be really really nice though, to see once in a while, a front page banner on the innocents being treated at the Role 3 hospital in KAF, or a Village Medical Outreach conducted by CIMIC, or the opening of a new stretch of highway, or the on going polio vaccinations, or the demining efforts, or the literacy programs for ANA/ANP, or the vocational training for local civilians, or, or, or.... I can go on and on ad nuaseum. These stories occasionally do get covered, but NEVER with the same weight as when one of us (my friends and I) get killed, or when we screw up.

 

[time expired]

ER,hit the nail right on the head,again.Just as in Government we get
the Media we deserve,when the average"Joe Public"has an attention
span of barely 2 min.we get the 2 min.news sound bite.which will
then allow him to have an opinion.This morning for instance he will
know Canadian soldiers shot up a carload of Afganis and will have an
opinion about this tragic event,however the stress and the threat to
the lives of said soldiers will have  very little effect on his opinion as this
would require an effort on his part to get more info.before he forms that
opinion,as the average Canadian would probably have difficulty finding
A-Stan.on a map I think we will be stuck with his 2min.soundbite based
opinion.
         Regards

 

[Dropkickjon]

I just got back from work and can now write a proper reply. First, I'd like to thank most of you for bringing up some good points in response to my post. It's nice to see that we can keep things civil even though we may disagree on a few issues. E.R. Campbell and Teeps74 brought up some especially interesting points. I'll definitely try to be more aware of the issues facing the military in my own reporting. I think my background has already predisposed me to be more sensitive to issues facing Canada's armed forces but this discussion has made me even more aware of your concerns. That's all I can promise though. At the end of the day I'm only really accountable for my own stories. Because I'm just beginning my career with the CBC I'm really just the equivalent of a private in military terms. So I'm really in no position to tell my colleagues how to do their jobs.

Now, I think I'll continue the discussion with a few more points. First, I don't think there is an organization in this country that is completely happy with the way it is treated in the media. That's just the way it goes. Some stories go your way while others don't. Here's something I would recommend to any organization: if you're not happy with the way in which you are portrayed in the media do something to change it. And I just don't mean a better public relations strategy. That will only go so far. In fact, many journalists have a certain level of disdain for people who work in public relations. They see them as road blocks who prevent them from talking the people who are really involved the story. The best way to have your issues expressed in the media is education. I'm not going to lie. For the most part, Canadian journalism schools are fairly liberal institutions. Of course, there are some centrist and even right leaning professors but overall their ideologies veer to the left. It should come as no surprise that these institutions create left leaning students. So if you want your interests to be well represented by these future journalists you should proactively educate them about the issues facing your organization (in this case the CF). The University of Calgary is actually doing this with its Military Journalism course. So that's a small step in the right direction (at least for you guys). When the students taking this course eventually move up the ranks within their respective institutions I think you'll notice a difference in the way the military is covered in this country. Of course, communication is also important (especially with the people who are most relevant to the story) but this isn't always possible within the military context for obvious reasons.

Now I'd like to talk about the CBC some more because it's a very peculiar organization. One the one hand it is a left-leaning news organization. On the other hand, it is also a highly nationalistic organization (in that distinctly "Canadian" form of inoffensive nationalism). The CBC's mandate is basically to represent Canada's national identity (whatever that is) and to and to actively contribute to the flow and exchange of cultural expression.

This dichotomy is present in the CBC's coverage of all kinds of issues. To use a military example, the special presentation at the Vimy Ridge memorial last year bordered on Canadian nationalistic propaganda. At the same time, you guys obviously believe soldiers in Afghanistan aren't depicted fairly. This puts the CBC in an interesting position that pleases nobody.

I would urge you all to watch the CBC's coverage on the two tragic civilian deaths in Afghanistan that were announced earlier today. I caught a bit of the coverage on News World and in this case it seemed very balanced to me. The reporter, from the Canadian Press, made sure to mention that the children's father ignored a street convoy and that that resulted in defensive actions from the soldiers. Anyways, it will be interesting to see how The National covers the story.

 

[Teeps74]

dropkickjon, despite some of the disdain displayed here, I would bet that more then one of us watches CBC or visits the website regularly.

I have met more then a few field reporters in my day... And you know something?

They have, to a person, been very decent and honest people. The kind of people you can talk to.

My perception of the problem is not the reporters themselves. It would be the editor who comes up with the headlines.

A very well balanced article, can go completely biased for or against with the simple rearranging of words in the headline. Hell, cut the headlines off of most newspaper articles today, and I bet we would find very balanced reporting.

And, let us not forget placement. We all remember today's headlines in newspapers, or the first shocking story at the top or bottom of the hour. It is placed there on purpose. So that we would remember.

Short of us capturing OBL alive, or us coming home, I do not expect to see a good news article about Afghanistan on the front page, above the fold, any time soon. At least not on any of our so called "national" newspapers.

To sum up... I do not think that many of us dislike reporters themselves. At least no those of us who have had the pleasure of getting to know you guys. Out side looking in (as you do with us) there is however a perception of an institutional bias against, and there is a frustration.

From what I have seen around in in my so far short stay, reporters and everyone in this nation are welcome here. You carry yourself well in a tough crowd, and I look forward to future interaction with you.

 

[Teeps74]

Oh, one more thing dropkickjon, fill in your profile. Folks would feel more comfortable with you in their circle if you are "wearing" your press pass.

 

[Blindspot]

I would urge you all to watch the CBC's coverage on the two tragic civilian deaths in Afghanistan that were announced earlier today. I caught a bit of the coverage on News World and in this case it seemed very balanced to me. The reporter, from the Canadian Press, made sure to mention that the children's father ignored a street convoy and that that resulted in defensive actions from the soldiers. Anyways, it will be interesting to see how The National covers the story.

I have to agree with you on this. I usually only watch the CBC to enrage myself over its political bias. One example of this is the current Obama media fellatio (granted, it's happening everywhere). However, when I heard about this tragic incident today, I watched the CBC coverage anticipating the anti-military spin. It didn't happen. The anchor simply and accurately repeated the main points of MacKay's press conference. The reporter in Afghanistan explained the cultural attitude of some Afghan drivers with an example of personal experience and both he and the anchor were giving the soldiers the benefit of the doubt with questions on the driver's behaviour, past suicide attacks and the deaths of soldiers in these types of attacks.

It just seemed fair and without the salacious aura of scandal.

edited for spelling

 

[North Star]

In some instances, fair and balanced reporting only seems to emerge under the threat of legal action.

 

[1feral1]

Hello humbled members and guests.

A most joyous greetings to you all, even if you work for the CBC, ha!

The CBC in my opinion has become a left winged establishment, and is a 180 degree turn around from what it was in the last wars (WW2 and Korea) that Canada fought in.

I view the CBC as a national embarassment and disgrace overall, shy of the odd, and I mean odd exception.

I have had thought that even when I was living in Canada.

The days of supporting and standing behind the troops and for the troops are long gone when it comes to the CBC.  Except for a fews worthy ones, overall, just a bunch of overpaid biased one sided people with agendas, who deserve to be out on the unemployment line as far as I am concerned.

Have a good diddly day now,

OWDU

 

[North Star]

If you think the CBC is biased, you should read today's Globe and Mail.

I have some limited experience with CBC reporters, and generally found who can best be described as the "lower ranking" ones as quite balanced, reasonable journalists. I unfortunately didn't see this trait with the more senior journalists and editors, who likely promote the journalists who share their viewpoints.

I am, however, also disappointed in the CF's approach to journalists. On the whole, it seems pretty passive. When negative reports are published, PAff Os don't seem authorized to "set the record straight" or else publicly tear at the respective journalist's reasoning. Although the Minister appears to have done this to the media today (aimed at the GM I think), I think it behooves the CF to get more proactive in the face of "unbiased" journalistic editorializing.

 

[Kat Stevens]

Listening to CBC Radio One on Sirius today.  The coverage went like this: "Canadian troops killed two children today when the vehicle they were riding in allegedly (heavy announcer emphasis) encroached on a convoy."  Then a lengthy explanation on Pushtu revenge traditions.

 

[gaspasser]

Listening to CBC Radio One on Sirius today.   The coverage went like this: "Canadian troops killed two children today when the vehicle they were riding in allegedly (heavy announcer emphasis) encroached on a convoy."  Then a lengthy explanation on Pushtu revenge traditions.

Yes, CBC was quite quick to mention that children were killed by Canadian troops.  Very little was said about the fact the FATHER kept driving the vehilce closer and closer to the convoy after repeated warnings to back off.  Big RED sign, lots of local advertizing coverage and warnings, and then this one with repeated warnings.  Sorry, the caption should have read "Canadian soldier saved the lives of his comrades when he fired on a vehicle that was getting too close for comfort.  Unfortunately, two children were shot and killed" 
My $0.02 worth

 

[North Star]

I am a little confused...perhaps the media have not adequately fact-checked things. Was it that father who was driving the vehicle, or another man who remains unidentified? I read an article today that stated that another man was driving the vehicle while the father was in the front seat, and the kids/wife in the back.

But yes, the media is turning this into a circus. I feel for the family, as well as the poor soldiers forced to pull the trigger.

 

[a_majoor]

Micheal Coren hears from one of the people who determine what actually gets presented on CBC. Draw your own conclusions as to bias.

http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Coren_Michael/2008/07/25/6269051-sun.php

He's just retorting on the job

By MICHAEL COREN
 
Last week I wrote about the case of Omar Khadr and how I had more sympathy for the young medic who was killed when Khadr was captured than for the man currently in custody at Guantanamo Bay. I said that he should have faced a trial by now but that much of the supposed compassion thrown at him was motivated more by hatred of the United States than love for justice and truth.

Hundreds of e-mails arrived, of course. Most in my favour, but many against, which is all a healthy indication of democracy and free speech. One, however, was particularly interesting, in that it was sent by someone who is paid by our tax dollars to be objective and balanced.

"You were kidding, right? No matter. That material is about as funny as a good old-fashioned waterboarding joke. Disgraceful." Richard Goddard goddardr@cbc.ca. o (+001) 416-205-5950 f (+001) 416-205-5731. Q on CBC Radio ONE. Canada Qs up: Afternoons 2 - 3:30, Evenings 10 - 11. Shipping Address: Office 2H109-D, Canadian Broadcasting Centre, 205 Wellington St. W., Toronto, Ont. M5V 3G7."

Perhaps I don't quite understand the mandate of the CBC and its employees, but I assumed that public time, money and equipment were supposed to be used for the public interest and not for private opinion and political vendettas.

If the message were purely personal, at the very least it revealed an intense ideological position from a producer who makes decisions about what should be on the public airwaves. But if it were purely personal why did it list so many CBC contact details? Was this an official CBC statement and if so could the directors of the corporation please explain their stance in greater detail?

My new friend is listed quite extensively at the CBC website. "Before joining The Current, Richard Goddard had an eight-year career in the devil-worshiping world of advertising. When he wasn't drinking blood or flogging the spoils of slave labour, he relaxed by producing for CBC Radio in Vancouver and later, Toronto. The sweet taste of truth eventually proved irresistible and Richard soon found himself producing regularly for local and national shows like Global Village, DNTO, Metro Morning and now, The Current."

TWADDLE

Pretentious twaddle aside, that sweet taste of truth requires a certain open-mindedness, especially when it comes to dealing with issues such as foreign policy, the United States, President Bush, Islam, terrorism, Canada's role in Afghanistan and our government's attitude towards its citizens abroad. Do we seriously, do we honesty and truly for a moment, do even the most liberal and leftist among us believe that Goddard is genuinely even-handed on these issues?

I am allowed to speak my mind because I work for a private company and as a columnist I am paid to express an opinion rather than report on a story. Even so, I would never write a crassly critical e-mail to another journalist listing myself as a Sun media employee, with numerous work details and addresses.

Yet the case is even more acute when the company employing Mr. Goddard is publicly funded and, by mandate, allegedly balanced and objective. Also, the CBC constantly complains that it is under-staffed and under-financed. One wonders if this is because some of its employees are using CBC time and resources to perform extremely non-CBC duties. It is, to quote Comrade Goddard, disgraceful.

 

[Greymatters]

First, I don't think there is an organization in this country that is completely happy with the way it is treated in the media. That's just the way it goes. Some stories go your way while others don't. Here's something I would recommend to any organization: if you're not happy with the way in which you are portrayed in the media do something to change it. 

Just in case you hadn't noticed, this forum is so popular for that exact reason with serving and retired CF members.  We have no individual power to change how the media interprets us due to a government system that does not allow us to speak openly with the press *while serving), and a mistrust of the press based on decades of being treated poorly by the press.

But to come to the point, I find your current employment to be of interest, and would like to pose a few comments and seek your response:

1:  Journalists have a history of success in gaining access to 'covert' sources inside every industry and organization when it comes to explaining difficult issues like economics, politics, or any other subject outside their realm of expertise.  Why is it that journalists have no 'inside' sources in the military (or ex-military) they can access?  They usually only go to PR spokespersons who, as you already stated, they know will not give them a complete answer.
   
2: When journalists don't understand high finance, or sunspot activity, or how a child adoption process works, they go to an expert and gain input.  When the military does something they don't understand, they call it nefarious and demanding of accountability.  Or they go to a civilian 'defence expert', who is usually just as clueless.  How can this vast difference in approaches and bias not be obvious, when it is a pattern that is repeated over and over? 

3:  You claim that there is a balance in stories about the CF and the military.  How so?  Most articles across the entire media spectrum are negative.  They focus on complaints about the military, or from soldiers in the military who have had bad experiences or committed criminal acts, or perceptions of the military and its actions by other organizations.  The only time of the year when you see a prominent level of positive articles is during Remembrance Day - please provide an example of balanced reporting. 

 

[Strike]

3:  You claim that there is a balance in stories about the CF and the military.  How so?  Most articles across the entire media spectrum are negative.  They focus on complaints about the military, or from soldiers in the military who have had bad experiences or committed criminal acts, or perceptions of the military and its actions by other organizations.  The only time of the year when you see a prominent level of positive articles is during Remembrance Day - please provide an example of balanced reporting.  

Greymatters,
If you're going to ask that of dropkickjohn, then I would suggest for every article that is "fair and balanced" that he can find then you should find 2 that are not.

I'm not trying to stir the pot here.  I know more than a few journalists, some that still contact me every once in awhile, if only to get terminology and acronyms sorted out, and they all try their best to report correctly.  Just think that in a thread like this we should do our best to back up both sides with examples.

 

[Greymatters]

I'm not trying to stir the pot here.  I know more than a few journalists, some that still contact me every once in awhile, if only to get terminology and acronyms sorted out, and they all try their best to report correctly.  Just think that in a thread like this we should do our best to back up both sides with examples. 

I accept that challenge, although it is not for you to issue it, if dropkickjohn wishes to - so let me clarify that when I say "Fair and balanced" I dont mean a neutral news article or some fluff piece about how the family supports the father, I mean an actually positive piece about the soldiers and the mission, in opposition to all the negative pieces out there.

Further 'boundaries':
- All pieces from the same 30-day window.
- All from Canadian magazines/newspapers.

Oh, and regarding your relationship with journalists you know, Im actually glad to hear it. 

 

[OldSolduer]

It seems the media loves Scott Taylor et al.....

 

[Strike]

Reminds me of when I was out on Op Nanook awhile back when one of our Sig Ops had to spend a night on the mountain.  The female media corps was embedded with the rest of the women in the sleeping quarters, including CBC.  I made sure to emphasize that night that the guy was NOT lost, just that the weather was crap and no one could go get him.  Of the 2 (maybe 3?) television outlets that were there, CBC was the only one that did NOT say he was lost.

(Same reporter also bought seal skin mits and made a point of wearing them during her reports hoping to raise the ire of the PETA-types.   ;D  She was very fun.)

Edited to fix a major spelling mistake... ;D

 

[Teeps74]

Greymatters,
If you're going to ask that of dropkickjohn, then I would suggest for every article that is "fair and balanced" that he can find then you should find 2 that are not.

I'm not trying to stir the pot here.  I know more than a few journalists, some that still contact me every once in awhile, if only to get terminology and acronyms sorted out, and they all try their best to report correctly.  Just think that in a thread like this we should do our best to back up both sides with examples.

I have befriended a couple of reporters in my time... Poor bastards have no control (or very little) over the headlines over their articles. Like I said before, many times, cut the headline off, and the article usually comes off as more "centrist".

Positioning of the article, and the headline will produce an effect on the target audience (TA). News editors do this on purpose. Where the bias comes in, people like dropkickjon, have very little control over.

The reporters in the field are not the enemy. They are usually very good people, sincere in their efforts to cover us fairly... Once they submit the article though, junior reporters have very little control at all over what is done with it. I am yet to meet a reporter who has done an embed task with us, walk away, and write an article about us, the "bad guys".  

Just remember, reporters are not the bad guys. Their bosses, whom the reporters have zero control over, I am not so sure about. Let us try to not pile on the poor new guy...

 

[Teeps74]

Oh, and on the question of full disclosure... I work in PSYOPS. Influencing reporters here in Canada is no go for me. However, for the rest, make friends with them, give them the facts. I have been over there, and frankly, the facts speak very well for themselves as far as I am concerned.

We are doing good work, and unless we befriend and talk to the press about it, how is it going to get reported? Who is going to tell the good stories if we are unwilling to tell them? We can not complain about media bias, and then turn around and treat the press like garbage or suspect everytime they come around.

Simple rule of thumb, nothing is "off the record" and always behave like the press is around when in uniform. When you see them, approach them, and talk within your lanes (assuming your chain of command allows it). If you were just at the site of a school reopening, you are in lanes to talk about it. If you just witnessed the opening of a new irrigation system near Dhala dam (future project) you are in your lanes to talk about it.

See your PA to get a media awareness card (if you do not already have one). We are all agents of the crown, and when we have something good to say, we should say it. For too long we have stood back, and said nothing of our good works, while wondering why no one has noticed. Fact is, human beings are lazy by nature. They will not notice our good works unless we tell them. Just keep it to easily verifiable facts, and we can not go wrong (the truth and facts can sometimes be different, facts are much much safer then the truth).