• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

CBC attempts more anti military spin

I fail to see how the CBC is "anti-military." Anyone here see Evan Solomon's bit about CF snipers? Or Mansbridge reporting from Afghanistan? and then in a separate instance,  CF bases across Canada?  Right now on CBC.ca there is an ongoing series of reports by a member of the CF who is serving in Afghanistan.
 
Kilo_302 said:
I fail to see how the CBC is "anti-military." Anyone here see Evan Solomon's bit about CF snipers? Or Mansbridge reporting from Afghanistan? and then in a separate instance,  CF bases across Canada?  Right now on CBC.ca there is an ongoing series of reports by a member of the CF who is serving in Afghanistan.

I agree with you, in general.

But: Media bias is very, very real; how could it be otherwise? Journalists (a word which has a pejorative sense when I use it) are humans, and humans - you, Kilo_302, me, George Wallace and friend Kirkhill - are humans and biased, too.

I think that most journalists share a pretty broad, general set of biases. Regardless of age, they think the antics of the baby-boomers in the 1960s and ‘70s (music, style, politics and protests, drugs and inherited wealth and so on) is the correct model. That model is, very broadly:

• Anti-American; and, consequentially

• Anti-capitalists; which means

• Socialistic; which is, perforce

• Stupid.

Being anti-American, the journalists’ thoughtless bias means that almost anything the Americans do must be wrong and we, Canada, are only right when we oppose American policies and actions. When, as in early 2002, Canadian public opinion demands that Canada join the USA in a military ‘adventure’ overseas the journalists will be grumpily quiet.

Their joy – the correct word, I think - was boundless, however, in the spring of ’02 when four Canadian soldiers were killed in a friendly fire incident at the Tarnak Farms, near Kandahar. They entered upon an orgy of anti-Americanism which allowed them, indirectly, to attack a mission of which they had disapproved, albeit silently, previously.

I think many, many journalists  especially those who have worked with the CF – are unabashed admirers of the soldiers. They are, however, quite able to separate their respect, even fondness for the men and women in the ranks from their ongoing, generally thoughtless opposition to any military operations undertaken with or in support of the USA.

If there is a real, partisan political, bias in the mainstream media I’m guessing it is pro-NDP. It is certainly anti-Conservative in most mainstream media outlets. In the main, the CF is tarred with the media’s thoughtless, deeply ingrained anti-American/anti-capitalist bias. The fault lies with a horribly flawed education system that forgot (and still forgets) history.
 
E.R. Campbell - you also forgot "if it bleeds, it leads"...a characteristic of the media is that it itself creates controversy to sell it's product. That, plus stupidity, is really dangerous.
 
North Star said:
E.R. Campbell - you also forgot "if it bleeds, it leads"...a characteristic of the media is that it itself creates controversy to sell it's product. That, plus stupidity, is really dangerous.

Agreed, but I think you are moving from the bias of journalists to the business aspects of selling the advertising - the important stuff for the publisher and proprietor.

Some journalists of my acquaintance – a very small number, I hasten to add – are disturbed by the media business. One pronounced herself horrified at the headlines which preceded a particular story of hers. When I suggested that the headline helped sell papers she countered that the ‘role’ of the media was to let her communicate her ideas to Canadians so that we might make the right decisions. In fact, of course, she was (still is) quite wrong – totally muddle headed. The ‘role’ of the media is to show a profit for the shareholders – nothing more. Were it otherwise we would not have legions of journalists ‘covering’ Cindy McCain, Michelle Obama, Lindsay Lohan and the 2008 European Cup final. The ‘product’ of the media is the big, colourful, two page car ad – the stories, the stuff that fills the blank spaces between the adverts, are part of the sales pitch.
 
I definitely agree that individual bias on the part of journalists is a problem, and this combined with as one poster put it, "it bleeds, it leads" might give the impression of an anti-military bias, but overall as an organization, I don't think that the CBC is purposely thinking, "Right, how can we tar the military today?"

On an aside, Mr. Campbell I think our debate on the economic super thread has been banished!  ;D
 
Kilo_302 said:
On an aside, Mr. Campbell I think our debate on the economic super thread has been banished!  ;D

Nope.
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/77733.0.html
 
E.R. Campbell said:
When I suggested that the headline helped sell papers she countered that the ‘role’ of the media was to let her communicate her ideas to Canadians so that we might make the right decisions.

Interesting view - when I was a reporter, I thought that way, too.  Or, more specifically, "if I put the information out there fairly and evenly, people will have enough common sense to decide for themselves".

You're correct, E.R., in that the "product" is produced by the business entity, and is only SUPPORTED by the reporter - s/he provides content, the outlet packages the editorial product.

E.R. Campbell said:
The ‘product’ of the media is the big, colourful, two page car ad – the stories, the stuff that fills the blank spaces between the adverts, are part of the sales pitch.

I'd fine tune this just a hair - the "product" or "deliverable" wouldn't be the ad, but the EYES/EARS of consumers drawn to the ad in question.

Reporters are like people - they have history they bring to their jobs.  What is supposed to happen via journalism training, in theory, is to provide tools and a mindset that allows a reporter to pick/choose the information required for the consumer to make his/her mind up.

In part, what I think ends up happening is:

1)  many reporters enter the business to help, to make a difference, thus predisposing them towards being "for" the underdog in most situations - and when is "the government" ever the underdog?; and

2)  corporate pressures (overt or covert) and decisions guide the reporters' coverage in a way that meets the corporate needs - I don't mean "why didn't you write it this way?" (although I know that happens on occasion), but what issues get covered, with how much resource, and how much space/time is devoted to the editorial product.

When I say "corporate", I don't just mean privately-owned media, either.
 
A very good discussion.  I would add that it seems passing strange that our objective media raise, with often  screaming headlines, any hint of possible human rights violations by the CF (or any other foreign forces in Afstan).  Then they constantly quote Taliban spokesmen (anyone ever heard of a Taliban spokeswoman?) without any, er, context such as the destruction of the Bamiyan Bhuddas.
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/central/03/12/afghan.buddha.02/

A thing it might help people to know about the insurgents or militants.

Mark
Ottawa
 
Many interesting ideas on this forum as usual, it's been a while but I'll wade in. 

I'm just a cameraguy so I have little input when it comes to editorial content, but I do try to push positive stories on the military whenever possible, it's true that there are many ex-military types in the media and many of us  who do support the military and want to see it get fair treatment in the news.  I can honestly say after 18 years in the industry that I have met few individuals with an axe to grind with the military, what does seem more common, and ER Campbell I think you nailed it, is a more subtle, generational attitude toward things military, and I'm talking specifically about the baby boomer generation.  But it's important to remember that the indifference or even disdain for the military is something that, in my opinion, is not just confined to the media, it is very much, unfortunately, a part of Canadian culture and that is largely a result of poorly educating us about our military history.  I'm reminded of when I went to shoot an anti-war demo and talked on camera with a new Canadian who proudly informed me that "Canada does not fight wars"!  Really?

I had a feeling there would be comments about the Stewart report, I saw it too and did'nt like it.  But to be fair to the CBC I have seen good reports on there that I felt were fair.  Still, I have always had a problem with the idea of a news agency that has to compete for public funding with the armed forces, reporting about the armed forces. 

And I encourage all of you who feel strongly to speak out, write letters/emails, those things do make a difference.  At the end of the day the media, with all it's faults, is a business, ratings not ideology are the biggest driving force, and that is a whole other discussion.
 
There are obviously layers to peel back here, from the profit motives of the MSM ownership to the basic education people in Canada receive and use to understand and interpret what is out there.

Careful re-reading of the featured CBC piece that started this thread, however, confirms that it was indeed written and presented with malice aforethought; the innuendos and distortion of facts are not there by accident. The dammed if you do (SOF operators might kill civilians that Taliban fighters use as human shields) and dammed if you don't (air and artillery might kill civilians that Taliban fighters use as human shields) is also simply placed before the viewer despite it's contradictory nature without comment. As the blogger points out, this piece is not "news", it is propaganda designed to lead the viewer to a particular conclusion.

Canadians are in an unenviable situation. The vast majority of news outlets reflect the educational and market driven bias that Edward has pointed out, and there is no Canadian "Fox Network" presenting an alternative point of view. The Blogosphere is one source of alternative news and opinion, but it is still "Narrowcast"; how many MSM outlets have followed the bloggers into the swamps of the CHRC; ADSCAM; Liberal Party funding woes, Liberal Party leadership candidates unable or unwilling to repay their debts (and now considered to be in possession of illegal campaign contributions?), the effects of the proposed Carbon tax on municipal governments and small business...these are just a few topics of the many that can be followed and studies in some detail in the Blogosphere, but never a whisper in the MSM. Why should that be?
 
I must admit this discussion is very fascinating. I'm coming at this from kind of a unique perspective. I'm actually a CBC journalist but I'm also an air force brat. A couple days ago I attended my dad's retirement party in Ottawa. As of Friday, he had served 35 years in the air force. There was an interesting moment when he introduced me to his boss (a general who's name I now forget). My dad told his boss, "This is my son xxxx and he actually just started working for the CBC in xxxx." My dad's boss shook my hand and told me, "The CBC is anti-military but I won't hold it against you."

I was absolutely flabbergasted by this comment. First, it probably wasn't the time nor the place for him to be telling me this during my dad's retirement party. But that's for another thread...

I was also taken a little aback because I had never noticed this perceived bias. And that it was apparently so bad that this guy felt compelled to tell me about it when we were all there to honour my father's 35 years of service to his country.

When I got home I thought I'd Google "CBC anti military" to see if I would find anything interesting. That lead me to this thread. I think there is some credence to some of the arguments. Although I'm not sure if it's really a systemic bias. The ratings argument in particular, doesn't hold up too well in the case of the CBC since it is not nearly as dependent on advertising dollars as its competitors.

That said, individual reporters obviously have their own personal biases (although the good ones try their best to be aware of those biases). It's also true that for many of the baby boomers in the CBC there's often a tendency towards the anti-war side of things. In fact, I had a bit of an awkward moment a couple weeks ago with one of my older colleagues. I was telling her about my family and my dad's line of work obviously came up. So she asked me what I thought about the war in Afghanistan. I told her I believe that Canada's presence in the country was justified. She disagreed and said that it had ruined Canada's reputation as a "peacekeeper."

All that to say that reporters obviously have their own individual biases in regards to the military. How could they not? For the most part, though, I think they've been able to keep their biases in check and have presented a fairly even handed picture of the war.

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.

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.
 
Dropkickjon said:
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.

Get rid of the whole 'if it bleeds, it leads,' frame of mind. You know, rather than "Canadian Forces kill civilian in Afghanistan' (who, most often disregard warnings used for their own safety)... why not "Canadian Forces help open medical clinic providing medical care and aid to thousands of rural Afghans"

Getting rid of sensationalism (sic?) can do a world of good. Waiting for somebody to die at the hands of the Canadian Forces to have front page news that does nothing but spread misinformation and fuel fires of the anti-anything-that-goes-bang crowd. If people would actually hear about just a fraction of the good that the CF and ISAF have done, rather than have "NATO airstrike kills 65 civilians" why not show the Canadian public what is actually happening? Why not show the Canadian public that the civilians killed were mixed with 'x' amount of Taliban using said civilians as human shields?
Get rid of sensationalism, get rid of 'if it bleeds, it leads.'

See where I'm getting at?

Midget
 
uncle-midget-boyd said:
Get rid of the whole 'if it bleeds, it leads,' frame of mind. You know, rather than "Canadian Forces kill civilian in Afghanistan' (who, most often disregard warnings used for their own safety)... why not "Canadian Forces help open medical clinic providing medical care and aid to thousands of rural Afghans"
See where I'm getting at?

Midget

I've seen those positive stories on The National as well. Do you honestly expect the media not to report on civilian deaths in Afghanistan? if we just ignore those stories we're doing our readers/listeners a huge disservice.

I think one of the things happening here is that people in the military tend to remember the negative stories more. That's just human nature. Just like a personal insult will stick with you longer than a compliment.
 
I had added a bit more to my post while you were replying.
Sorry, thats just my brain kicking into gear after I've hit the post button.
If you read what I added, I think I answer your question there.

Midget
 
On the "Civilian Deaths" theme; why not report on how many the Taliban have been killing?  I could also ask what has happened to reporting Civilian Deaths here at home?  Fatalities from traffic accidents here at home are just as common as fatalities in foreign lands due to people being in a war zone.  I know it is a bit morbid, but it is a fact of life in places where terrorism and war are taken place.  Is CBC just perpetuating the "Rubbernecking" phenomenon that we see daily on our highways?
 
To be fair, I have seen some excellent reporting from CBC on Afghanistan. By the same token I have seen and read some really slanted pieces that are almost crying out "CF is Bad"....

A number of articles are written in the vein of "The Canadians should have been able to do it better/differently/more caring/etc...". Total credibility is automatically given to AQ and Taliban positions, interviews are focused on the dissenting view of the CF, and on and on.

It is the mindset that invades the articles, interview, nuances by the reporter as to where the focus should be. Is it blatant? Seldom, but it is there.
 
Personally, I think that 90% of the time it comes down to shoddy research - something that isn't limited to the CBC.

Do some checking before running a story, provide some background, question the credentials of "experts" being quoted, add some context.  Don't buy into hysteria and hyperbole.

Why not develop some in house expertise capable of providing both historical and technical background on military affairs instead of relying on "experts" who so obviously carry a personal, political, or professional bias?  CBC could sorely use a military correspondent, one that is conversant with the issues, can "talk the talk", and can provide objective analysis of military events.

I have no issues with criticism of the CF or of our various (government ordered) missions.  However, that criticism has to be developed from an educated perspective - not from an institutional or political bias.  For instance, even a modicum of research would have provided context to the recent hysteria surrounding the so-called "Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline", or to the CDS' comments on the security situation in Kandahar province.  Instead, reporters leapt on the bandwagon, quoted the same "experts" and provided the same abysmal analysis - typically without emperical data.

Finally:

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.

This is an unfair comparison.  This board isn't representative of anything, and certainly doesn't have a mandate to inform the public.  It is, by its very nature, biased.  Literally anyone can create an account and begin posting on any subject.  A fairer comparison would be to the comments section on the CBC News website, a venue liberally populated with anti-military bigots.

Cheers,

TR

 
Here's a few question for you aspiring journalists out there on this "bias" theory and what your bias would be towards any of these scenarios

"What if, these terrorists were to bring this war to our backyard? What if toronto, Edmonton, Montreal or Vancouver were targetted? Would you still have your bias when the first people you would call would be, let me guess, the military? Or would they suddenly be the "Good guys" again because you suddenly needed them to save your sorry asses.

But in the here and now, because the the war is 10,000 miles away and in another country you feel the need to sully them at every opportunity and paint them as "the evil ones".

I watch the news, read the papers and sometimes surf the internet and what I see sickens me. Many of you journalists for the most part seem to take great pleasure on reporting negative stories about the military, anti-American and the like. But let the other boot drop and your all turned into a bunch teary eyed, scared, bumbling idiots. After 9/11 who was one of the first to be called up, "the military" and the "National Guard". Were you glad they were there? I would have to say yes, probably because you thought that your sorry asses were about to get kicked and your way of life was threatened by the "real evil ones". So who best to call up to save the day, yes my biased journalistic friends the "military" or as you would call them, "the evil ones".

My point to you is "you don't throw rocks at a glass house" because without fail, it will always fall down around your pointed ears and then... "WHO YOU GONNA CALL" to save your sorry hides. I'm sure the ghost busters will be a real big help.

Jackasses.
 
I don’t think he CBC is any more biased than any other news outlet – perhaps some of the bias ‘shows’ more because, unlike the print media, public broadcasters have a ‘stunted’ editorial position (pace Rex Murphy). We know, for example, where the Toronto Star and the National Post ‘stand’ on political issues: we know because we are supposed to know – they tell us, explicitly, “we support this party, these policies and we hope for these outcomes.”

I like the idea of partisan and private media; I’m one who believes that “freedom of the press belongs to those who own it (the printing press).” I suspect that the difference between a robust private print media and, in editorial terms, an anaemic broadcast system is the fact – and it is a fact – that the electromagnetic/radio frequency spectrum is part of the nation’s sovereign patrimony, it, unlike a printing press or a paper mill, belongs to us all and, therefore, governments (e.g. R.B. Bennett’s in Canada, Franklin Roosevelt’s in the USA) initially (circa 1930) established broadcast regulations that more or less forced the broadcasters, private and public, into a ‘public trust’ model that I believe is ineffective and almost promotes biased journalism.

My biggest ‘problem’ is the idea of ‘balance’ that, I am convinced, leads, almost forces, broadcasters to spout nonsense – even when they know it’s nonsense.

Let me give you an example: I’m interested in politics; politicians and their opinions matter to me; I rarely pass up an opportunity to listen to a politician or a political scientist - except when they are forced into a phoney ’dialogue’ on any number of radio and (mostly) TV programmes. Very single time I see Don Newman (CBC) or Mike Duffy (CTV) turn to their three or four member parliamentary panels I give thanks for the ‘clicker’ and switch quickly to something more useful – like a paid promotion for the Veg-o-Matic. I have nearly the same reaction when, immediately after someone like the MND or the CDS is interviewed, on a policy matter, the CBC or CTV or Global or whichever immediately calls on some ’defence expert’ like Sunil Ram or Scott Taylor. With respect to both, neither is especially well qualified to comment on much of anything to do with defence policy. In fact, in my personal opinion, as much as I admire Taylor for his perseverance and grit and, ultimately, personal success as a ‘journalists’ and publisher, neither he nor Ram is credible on any foreign/defence policy or strategic issue.

There are qualified critics out there – for example: Ernie Regehr at Project Plowshares or Roland Paris and his colleagues at the University of Ottawa’s Centre for International Policy Studies are reliable, highly qualified and thoughtful critics of government (any government) policy (any policy).

“Critic,” of course, means ”one who expresses a reasoned opinion on any matter”- but that’s not what a ratings obsessed public broadcaster needs, “reason” is a bad way to sell soap. Rather, in the 21st century, “reason” and “balance” give way to polemicists, like Taylor, and promoters, like Ram, who can be trusted to provoke controversy. Almost all Canadian broadcast media coverage of important issues has devolved into a sad parody of the screamers on “The McLaughlin Group” or the “O’Reilly Factor” for the perfectly good reason that they are ‘entertaining’ and broadcast media managers assume, correctly, that entertainment will bring in audiences. Journalism and information take a poor second place. The end result is a sort of institutionalized ‘anti-establishment’ bias that makes the aging baby-boomers (and their pale imitators) happy and entertains viewers/listeners who are, sadly, less and less interested in issues and more and more prone to adopt a ‘popular’ position based on the celebrity status of its proponents.

So, the problem is not, I think, as much journalists’ bias as it is the broadcast media’s search for audience ‘share.’ Unlike ‘deep pocketed media moguls’ like e.g. Conrad Black, broadcasters (public and private) do not have the luxury of being able to afford an opinion of their own. Rather, they must dance to the public’s insatiable appetite for entertainment and controversy and journalistic ‘quality’ is the first thing they sacrifice on the alter of ratings.     


Edit: typo
 
Back
Top