CBC attempts more anti military spin

[Greymatters]

If you are going to seperate out reporters in the field from editors behind the desk, then yes I agree that there are great differences in performance and motivation.  

 

[Greymatters]

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). 

Well said...

 

[gwp]

And from the other side of the looking glass ...

We need to get out of Afghanistan as soon as possible. There's no way a few Canadian Soldiers can drag Afghanistan into the 21st century. The fact that Pakistan has kept in close contact with the Taliban for the whole time we've been over there just illustrates what they KNOW for sure, and what we also know, but won't yet admit. That is that if a huge force of fully equipped Russians couldn't control that place, even with all the firepower and the torture methods available, there's absolutely no way a few Canadians can do it, handcuffed as they are with by the friction of political correctness and bound by the Geneva Convention. They are merely providing target practice for the Taliban, and our "Allies" in NATO are perfectly happy to stand by and watch the scoreboard. It borders on criminality for our Defense Department to waste the lives of more of our soldiers in that hopelessly backward land. We might as well burn the money its costing us.
The CBC's shameless cheerleading for this conflict is particularily disgusting. The link between the Taliban and the Pakistani Government is the elephant in the room.
Posted by: dave | Apr 15, 07 06:41 PM

And here

http://www.insidethecbc.com/peteronwar

 

[OldSolduer]

I don't know much about the media, I will admit that.
Here's what I know:

I was at Cpl Arnel's funeral yesterday, one of over 1000 people. I am proud to be associated with those soldiers who were his buddies via our Regimental affiliation.
I also know what Canada as a nation is doing in Afghanistan is the RIGHT THING TO DO. (Sorry Mr. Brimley I had to use it). The soldiers know instinctively that this mission is a righteous one and is acheivable, given the time and resources. This has to be explained to Canada, in no uncertain terms.
Now Mr. Layton has reiterated his call for negotiations to begin with the Taliban.....

 

[Teeps74]

Ultimately though, negotiations are going to be necessary. Otherwise, insurgencies can go on for.... Ever. The Taliban, as an entity, is more reasonable then al'Qaeda.

The Taliban do have fanatics, and for the fanatics as well as al'Qaeda, proper bullet placement with those clowns and cowards is the only necessary negotiation to take place.

The fanatics will not be negotiated with, because they would accept nothing less then their view of government in Afghanistan, and based on what I read on their sites, nothing less then their view of government on the entire planet (good bye freedom of everything).

Now, I have no love for Taliban Jack... But in as much as he is wrong, by accident he is also right.

(I might point out though, that we are not the right entity to conduct negotiations... And who would have thunk it, but President Karzai has already thought of this, and hence we have the "Peace Through Strength" program in Afghanistan, which is negotiatians with the Taliban and other illegal armed groups in the country. Afghans are the proper entity to be negotiating with the Taliban, not us. Also, all those foriegn fighters with al'Qaeda that the press are very quiet or blatantly ignoring are exempt from this process... They have the option to just go the hell home or be killed/taken prisoner.)

 

[Dropkickjon]

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. 

It seems to me like you just answered your first question with that initial paragraph. The consequences are far greater when you go behind that back of your CO than if you go behind the back of your civilian boss. Usually the worst that can happen in the latter case is that you get fired. In the military, divulging top secret information probably borders on treason.

I believe the perception of bias in your second question comes from the fact that you are so closely involved with military matters. Because you probably know far less about the economy, for example, the economic experts in the media may seem far more knowledgeable than they really are. It's all just a matter of perspective. You're far more likely to think someone is clueless when you happen to disagree with them on a subject with which you yourself are knowledgeable.

Now onto your third point. when I said I find the CBC's coverage to be fairly balanced I meant it on the micro level. That is to say that for the most part, and there are exceptions, the content within individual stories seems to be fairly balanced. All the stories I saw about yesterday's tragedy, for example, made sure to explain that the father driving the vehicle held a lot of the blame. On the macro level I'd have to say I agree with you. To a point. There are stories about the construction efforts, for example, but they don't get nearly as much air time (or front page coverage in the case of newspapers) as the tragic incidents like yesterday's. This goes back the the business end of the media. More people want to read about the tragic incidents than the positive ones. It's pretty unfair to blame the journalists for this. After they cover the story and file it in it's out of their hands. 

 

[GGboy]

I've been hesitating to get involved in this, mainly because (full disclosure graphic here) I'm both a reservist and a reporter with more than 20 years working in the national media, but also because most of the main points have been covered. Kudos in particular to those who pointed out the vast difference between the reporters in the field and their editors in comfy chairs in Toronto. Much of the Globe and Mail's recent slanted coverage of Afghanistan can be traced to their editor in chief, who has decided some time ago that Afghanistan was going to be Canada's Vietnam and is not about to let inconvenient facts dissuade him.
But one thing I did want to add was the importance of knowing the media terrain. I can't emphasize enough the need for the CF to start getting smart about its knowledge and yes, even manipulation of the media. The more honest members of my daytime profession will admit that we're manipulated all the time -- half the nonsense that goes on on Parliament Hill is about "massaging" the media -- and if the CF doesn't start getting smarter about it, we're going to get bitten by it.
While the army in particular made great strides with the introduction of embedding in 2003, and the increased professionalism of the Public Affairs branch (yes, it's true: stop your snickering) over the past year or two things have kind of stalled. What is needed IMHO is a pro forma: an established format to do a combat assessment of the media and its effect on your mission. In other words, it should be part of battle procedure, at least at the BG level or higher.
Towit;
Situation: Enemy
Situation: Friendly
Situation: Media
And etc.
Until we start taking the media component of our missions seriously and looking comprehensively at the media who are going to be covering those missions, we risk getting a nasty surprise like the recent nonsense about detainees in Afghanistan.
And for the front-line types, I cannot overestimate the importance of understanding that the media are nowhere near one consistent group: we're wildly varied, from complete wastes of rations that I'm sure most of the people on this board have dealt with from time to time, to knowledgeable and honest reporters who have a genuine interest in the military and its members. The key is to identify each and treat them accordingly.
Which brings us rather neatly to negotiating with the Taliban. Question is: which Taliban? The hard-core Mullah Omar supporters probably won't talk with Karzai's government and if they do can't be trusted. Some of their allies of convenience on the other hand ...
But I'm sure wiser heads than mine have already figured this out.

 

[gwp]

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),

DAOD 2008 allows "In their official capacity, CF members and DND employees may agree to be interviewed by the media provided it is to speak about what they do."   There is a wallet card available to every soldier, sailor, air man or women that sets out the policy and how it is actioned.

and a mistrust of the press based on decades of being treated poorly by the press.

That would be difficult to confirm, quantify and support. 

The CF DND is considered to the the most open department in Government.  Other departments envy the amount of time and space the CF gains.  The CF/DND Public Affairs Handbook is a best seller in Ottawa.

it (PA) should be part of battle procedure, at least at the BG level or higher.
Towit;
Situation: Enemy
Situation: Friendly
Situation: Media
And etc.

Where 10 or 15 years ago PA was a couple of lines in an Op Order there is now a full annex often supported by a separate Public Affairs Plan for missions and major exercises

New CF recruits are briefed in media awareness.
Ship's companies are given media awareness training. 

The mission is:
"To inform Canadians of the role, mandate, activities, priorities and benefits of the CF/DND  in a manner that is accurate, complete, objective, timely, relevant, understandable and open within the law"
At the same time when speaking publicly it is necessary to be concerned with SAPP -- Security, Accuracy, Policy and Propriety. 

Stay within your own area of expertise, don't speculate, don't discuss government policy, never say no comment, and never ever lie.  Seek advice and support from Public Affairs, agree to be interviewed only if you want to , discuss your own job and area of expertise, respect operational security, the judicial process, federal laws, and policies.  

In otherwords within the policy is a responsbility for every member of the CF to inform Mr. and Mrs. Canada what they did for them today.

 

[vonGarvin]

But I'm sure wiser heads than mine have already figured this out.

I already have, thanks ;D

Joking aside, as the previous poster stated, there is a vast amount of effort, BG level and higher, aimed at the message.  "The media is the message" and all that jazz....

 

[Teeps74]

Dropkick, you might want to take a look at this thread:

Article on Discipline

I would be curious as to how this piece of tabloid journalism from the CBC can be seen as anything but highly biased.

See my responses in this thread... Yes, we could have handled it better, however that does not excuse any entity, and certainly not a Crown corperation from running with such a slanted, sensationalistic article.

It is articles like these that come up ENTIRELY too frequently from the CBC that will cause a strong distrust and dislike for the CBC and those that work for them.

 

[PanaEng]

Thanks GWP,
For some of us that have been retired/away from the military for a while that information may be quite surprising. Even if it was in the CFAOs when we were serving, most of us can recall - I'm sure - being told to not even look at a reporter or attract their attention.
I'm all for hearing a NCM being interviewed, explaining what s/he does, in plain language (that's what most people understand) instead of some polished sr. officer with an academic vocabulary sounding pompous or arrogant. I think one of Gen. Hillier greatest strengths is his ability to tailor his speech to the audience.

Frank

 

[The Bread Guy]

I'm all for hearing a NCM being interviewed, explaining what s/he does, in plain language (that's what most people understand) instead of some polished sr. officer with an academic vocabulary sounding pompous or arrogant.

Here here!  Now, how do we get more government writing (especially material aimed at the general public) closer to the former than the latter?

 

[NL_engineer]

Well I just seen this on  the news, and it fits well here:

Combat, lack of respect for institutions reflected in military charges: MacKay
Last Updated: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 | 4:34 PM ET Comments1Recommend2
CBC News

Disciplinary problems and lack of respect for institutions in society are reflected in a surge of charges against Canadian Forces members since the mission in Afghanistan began in 2002, Defence Minister Peter MacKay suggested Wednesday.

A CBCNews.ca investigation found that summary charges — those handled at the unit level and include accusations ranging from drunkenness to misconduct of a sexual nature — rose from 1,300 in 1998-99 to 2,100 in 2006-07. Some other serious charges, such as sexual assault, which are normally handled at a court martial, also rose during that period.

Edited to add

oops forgot the link

 

[Dropkickjon]

Well I just seen this on  the news, and it fits well here:

Expect to hear a lot more about this in the coming days.

I work at a regional station that rarely ever does stories about the military and there was even talk here about following up on that report.

 

[gwp]

I'm all for hearing a NCM being interviewed, explaining what s/he does, in plain language (that's what most people understand)

It has been the case time and time again that the best spokes people for the CF are master killicks and corporals and killicks and corporals. And the ocassional Sgt./PO .   They know their job, they are proud of it and they can explain it to grandma.  The policy works. 

The key for the individual is don't suprise your boss .. inform of any media contact one level up.  That applies to everyone from privates/ODs to Adm/Gen.

 

[a_majoor]

Meanwhile, left wing credentials are trotted out as a mark of approval for CBC employees. Try really really hard to continue claiming impartiality and lack of bias when CBC personalities come forward like this. (n.b., if two equally prominent CBC personalities were to come forward as Conservative candidates, that would not be an improvement; the institution is supposed to be impartial; you want to run for office or become a pundit; cut your ties to the CBC first!).

http://conservativequeen.blogspot.com/2008/07/ndp-proud-of-ties-to-cbc-while.html

NDP Proud of Ties to the CBC, while Pretending it is Impartial

Rather than even pretending that the CBC is a neutral and non-partisan Canadian news outlet, the NDP is promoting their by-election Candidates for their ties to the left-wing broadcaster. An NDP friend of mine forwarded an email to me he recently received soliciting donations to fund the three by elections which have been called. They email (pictured below) included the following text:

"Two popular CBC personalities are leading the charge: world-renowned aboriginal writer Tom King in Guelph and award winning host of CBC Radio Noon Anne Lagacé Dowson in Westmount--Ville-Marie."

They don't even have the shame to pretend that these journalists randomly came to be NDP supporters - they proudly announce their affiliation with the CBC as though this were an NDP credential.

However, if any conservative ever protests against the obvious biases in the CBC's reporting (e.g, Krista Erickson feeding questions to Pablo Rodriguez, quoting the Prime Minister and other Conservatives out of context, etc.), they feign outrage that we would dare to question the CBC's "impartiality."

It's time for the NDP and the other parties of the left to stop trying to simultaneously insist on the neutrality of the CBC while recruiting candidates there.

 

[Teeps74]

Is this karma at work? It would appear that all is not well with the much vaunted CBC.

CBC workers abused, threatened

Almost half of CBC's 10,000 employees suffer from "high levels" of psychological distress related to their working conditions, according to a 2005 "wellness" survey of 4,630 staff obtained through the Access to Information Act.

The survey, which cost an estimated $100,000, asked employees questions related to psychological health, harassment, working conditions and job satisfaction.

The results describe a "troubled" working environment where 44% of staff displayed symptoms of high-level psychological distress. Nine out of 10 afflicted workers said it was related to their work. Those classified as distressed also took twice as many sick days.

...More at link above.

Funny, how that works.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Meanwhile, left wing credentials are trotted out as a mark of approval for CBC employees. Try really really hard to continue claiming impartiality and lack of bias when CBC personalities come forward like this. (n.b., if two equally prominent CBC personalities were to come forward as Conservative candidates, that would not be an improvement; the institution is supposed to be impartial; you want to run for office or become a pundit; cut your ties to the CBC first!).

To be fair, Tom King is NOT a journalist with the CBC, but a writer/playright - I've never heard news stories produced or read by him on air.

Bang on about Anne Lagacé Dowson, though - as "host of CBC’s Home Run, Radio Noon, and guest host of As It Happens and Cross Country Check Up", she's WAY more in the editorial driver's seat.  I'm guessing she is on some type of a leave of absence from CBC (no mention in the news release, but I think we would have heard if she was still on the air).

Edited 10:03EDT to confirm Anne Lagacé Dowson is, indeed, on a leave of absence....

 

[Greymatters]

It seems to me like you just answered your first question with that initial paragraph.... 

Followed with a PM...

 

[NL_engineer]

Is this karma at work? It would appear that all is not well with the much vaunted CBC.

CBC workers abused, threatened

...More at link above.

Funny, how that works.

Do you think CTV will tell the story?