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

CBC Interview with new RCAF Commander

FSTO

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
3,813
Points
1,210
I was watching CBC The National on Friday and they had an interview with the new Commander of the RCAF. With the war in Ukraine, F35, NORAD Modernization, Multi-mission aircraft replacement, personnel issues, etc. What did you think they asked the General?.........bloody Snowbirds FFS.

Mod edit to clarify subject
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I thought you were going to say they asked about sexual misconduct. Or how people of colour are mistreated in the RCAF. Or how he plans to recruit and accommodate LGBTQ members. Or how he plans to do to recruit, promote and retain more Indigenous members. Or what pronouns he prefers. We are talking about the CBC after all. They do have a corporate political agenda they're pushing. I would never expect them to lead with a question about the actual purpose or missions of the RCAF.
 
I was watching CBC The National on Friday and they had an interview with the new Commander of the RCAF. With the war in Ukraine, F35, NORAD Modernization, Multi-mission aircraft replacement, personnel issues, etc. What did you think they asked the General?.........bloody Snowbirds FFS
How long was the interview? What else was asked?

Given there was an accident not tooooooooooo long ago involving the Snowbirds, not entirely out of line high up in a (likely) short period of time available.
... They do have a corporate political agenda they're pushing. I would never expect them to lead with a question about the actual purpose or missions of the RCAF.
And if a reporter/host asked, "and what exactly does the RCAF do?", would they be praised for drawing information about the RCAF, or would they get a "WTF do they think the RCAF does?!?!?" Careful what you wish for ....
 
It was short. You have a point, but the bloody Snowbirds? An outfit that should have been disbanded years ago. :cautious:
Hey, for sure there's a case to be made about it being time for the Snowbirds to (mixing my metaphors) sail off into the sunset, but for the average news decision maker (in or outside the CBC), if there's been a "crash" involving the Snowbirds in the past week or so, and you get a chance to talk to the head of the Air Force, it would be a pretty big ball drop NOT to ask about "so, whazzup? any concerns about these planes?".

Also remember that some of the stuff we discuss in these parts, while intriguing and important to the running of the military, is often "insider baseball" to the "average" media consumer. I know if I ask 10 people I know who are switched on & aware, but with no military experience, the importance of F-35 acquisition, all of them would likely go something like, "uh, isn't that a plane the military wants to buy?" In fact, most of them would respond more if I asked them "didja hear some people are saying it's time to get rid of the Snowbirds?"

Like many way smarter than me have said before, Canadian support (and I'll extend that to include understanding) of the military as a collective whole is a mile wide and an inch deep :(
 
Last edited:
It was short. You have a point, but the bloody Snowbirds? An outfit that should have been disbanded years ago. :cautious:
Not arguing there. Unfortunately, that is the one part of the RCAF all Canadians know and see across the country. By design.

When there is an accident and grounding of aircraft, that then becomes national news, you better believe that is a talkingnpoint for the media because it has the most reach across audiences.

The majority of Canadians, unless they are in the CAF or are one person removed from the CAF, don't give a  flying feck abiut the F-35 program or anything else operational.

What the RCAF Comd should have done was use it as a litmus indicator of how far behind the 8 ball we are in maintenance and lifecycling. It would have far more impact on getting politicians moving on the F-35 project when voters are rattled to action, after seeing the report on the TV.
 
What the RCAF Comd should have done was . . . when voters are rattled to action, after seeing the report on the TV.

People have to actually find such a report to get rattled. CBC News Network is my usual TV news outlet. Unless I'm watching something in particular (which is less and less with much of the crap on the idiot box), I'll have it on almost as background, so there is a better than average chance that if a particular piece shows up in their rotation, it may catch my attention. This item didn't. When FSTO brought it to our attention, I was interested enough to go looking for the actual interview so I could gauge their outrageous journalistic behaviour. It took a while to find, but here is the Friday 12 Aug edition of The National (I thoroughly dislike CBC's playback capability, it's utter shit).


The "interview" comes in around 17:20, just following the approximately 20 second piece on CAF members going to train Ukrainian soldiers. It surprises me that I missed the "9 seconds" that LGen Kenney speaks during the approx 45 second piece that is titled Canadian Forces Snowbirds Safety Examination.

Okay, I'm being my usual sarcastic self, but to categorize Kenney "speaking to the CBC after his instalment ceremony at the Canada Aviation and Space Museum in Ottawa" (so described in the reporter's written article) as an interview would be to suggest more that the reality.

 
People have to actually find such a report to get rattled. CBC News Network is my usual TV news outlet. Unless I'm watching something in particular (which is less and less with much of the crap on the idiot box), I'll have it on almost as background, so there is a better than average chance that if a particular piece shows up in their rotation, it may catch my attention. This item didn't. When FSTO brought it to our attention, I was interested enough to go looking for the actual interview so I could gauge their outrageous journalistic behaviour. It took a while to find, but here is the Friday 12 Aug edition of The National (I thoroughly dislike CBC's playback capability, it's utter shit).

Great catch - thanks for sharing!
... The "interview" comes in around 17:20, just following the approximately 20 second piece on CAF members going to train Ukrainian soldiers. It surprises me that I missed the "9 seconds" that LGen Kenney speaks during the approx 45 second piece that is titled Canadian Forces Snowbirds Safety Examination.

Okay, I'm being my usual sarcastic self, but to categorize Kenney "speaking to the CBC after his instalment ceremony at the Canada Aviation and Space Museum in Ottawa" (so described in the reporter's written article) as an interview would be to suggest more that the reality.

To use a military comparison, just because a formed-up platoon end-of-day dismissal is less complicated than a trooping of the colours doesn't mean it's not a "parade," just a different kind.

Technically, an "interview" is a recorded exchange between a "newsmaker" and a reporter. It can be as informal as reporter recording a phone or online conversation, reporter getting some Q&As in after an event (as this situation looks like) or it could be as formal as setting up the studio with 2 chairs, the host & the subject. No, it's not Peter Mansbridge grilling someone, but it's still a reporter asking questions and getting responses/answers.
 
Great catch - thanks for sharing!

To use a military comparison, just because a formed-up platoon end-of-day dismissal is less complicated than a trooping of the colours doesn't mean it's not a "parade," just a different kind.

Technically, an "interview" is a recorded exchange between a "newsmaker" and a reporter. It can be as informal as reporter recording a phone or online conversation, reporter getting some Q&As in after an event (as this situation looks like) or it could be as formal as setting up the studio with 2 chairs, the host & the subject. No, it's not Peter Mansbridge grilling someone, but it's still a reporter asking questions and getting responses/answers.

I bow to your greater knowledge and experience of the journalistic process.

But, I am, sometimes, a cantankerous old fart who will fall back on semantics to defend my position. While LGen Kenney was assuredly "interviewed" (Hanomansing clearly says "we asked him about . . ." in the intro), The National piece did not present the "exchange" of question/answer during their programme so I will cleave to my belief that what I watched was not an interview but a comment (or answer, if you will) from the RCAF Comd.
 
I bow to your greater knowledge and experience of the journalistic process.

But, I am, sometimes, a cantankerous old fart who will fall back on semantics to defend my position. While LGen Kenney was assuredly "interviewed" (Hanomansing clearly says "we asked him about . . ." in the intro), The National piece did not present the "exchange" of question/answer during their programme so I will cleave to my belief that what I watched was not an interview but a comment (or answer, if you will) from the RCAF Comd.
Well, you're bang on, too, in that they aired a comment/clip, not the interview. But he wasn't wrong when he said "we asked him about x". An interview is any exchange of Q&As, but if they didn't say they were airing an interview, sadly, they're colouring within the lines.

And as a fellow COF myself, I hear ya re: paying attention to how words are used - nothing wrong with pointing this stuff out. Testify! ✊
 
I wish the senior leadership would see media appearences as an opportunity to bring certain things to light, thus gathering public support & not kicking the can down the road.

(Done in a professional manner, and certainly not the emphasis. But done so with a casual comment & then just continue on as if it’s no big deal.)



BUT…by reading through this thread, an obvious dilemma has been brought sharply into focus. What if the media doesn’t air that part of a Q&A, or aid that part of a press conference?

(Who wants to run the risk of getting fired Admiral Norman style if they run the risk of the media not even airing the point being made?)
 
I can remember watching a certain Admiral who when asked what he do when faced with He Soviet Union.
He replied that he could destroy the Soviet military threat quite easily if he had the power to do so.
He'd slap them all into the same uniform triple their workload and freeze their budget and leave them like that for twenty years.
 
I wish the senior leadership would see media appearences as an opportunity to bring certain things to light, thus gathering public support & not kicking the can down the road.

(Done in a professional manner, and certainly not the emphasis. But done so with a casual comment & then just continue on as if it’s no big deal.)



BUT…by reading through this thread, an obvious dilemma has been brought sharply into focus. What if the media doesn’t air that part of a Q&A, or aid that part of a press conference?

(Who wants to run the risk of getting fired Admiral Norman style if they run the risk of the media not even airing the point being made?)

Senior leadership does and says what their told by their political masters.

I've said it in other threads, the rank and file are dying to see a GO/FO or CWO publically move their careers into harms way for the sake of the betterment of the organization and its people. Instead of being seen to be puppets.
 
Senior leadership does and says what their told by their political masters.

I've said it in other threads, the rank and file are dying to see a GO/FO or CWO publically move their careers into harms way for the sake of the betterment of the organization and its people. Instead of being seen to be puppets.
Its definitely an Animal Farm scenario for a lot of the troops I talk to, even moreso on the r/CanadianForces reddit.

They see no difference between politician/bureaucrat and Senior officer, as they're of the opinion the former has castrated the latter in matters of military policy.
 
What the soldiers want to see as well.

Fine line, though, with any military with elected civilian oversight.

Generals/bureaucrats publicly snub/disagree with politicians we DON'T like or agree with? Rock on, stick it to the man, speak truth to power, be brave ....

Generals/bureaucrats publicly snub/disagree with politicians we DO like or agree with? Who elected those f#$%^&ers, disloyal f%^&(ks, treasonous f#$%^&(kers ....

Good for the goose ...

And sadly, I suspect we can never COMPLETELY separate politics :(
 
Senior leadership does and says what their told by their political masters.

I've said it in other threads, the rank and file are dying to see a GO/FO or CWO publically move their careers into harms way for the sake of the betterment of the organization and its people. Instead of being seen to be puppets.
Mark Norman enters the chat... 😉
 
What did you think they asked the General?.........bloody Snowbirds FFS.

They get the most visibility, for better or worse. I'm surprised the media even knows they belong to the RCAF. Someone must have googled it before the interview.
 
Back
Top