No Media at Repatriation of Fallen

[muffin]

I listened all morning as our local radio station complained about the media ban and how it was thier right to watch the return because that was how they show support....  :

The interesting thing was that as most other sources they failed to attempt to understand why the ban was put in place and used it as another dig at the conservative government.

I found it interesting that one announcer said she would be suprised if many of the CF members supported the ban / flag decisions.... so I sent them this forum as a tool for enlightenment... and if they are reading it now (and I sincerly hope they take the time to give it a read) I hope this helps them see the "other side of the argument" a little clearer.

Quite frankly, if I had to take my children to Trenton to see thier father brought home in a flag drapped coffin, I would not want it broadcast to the nation. There will be memorials etc for this type of community/national mourning.

EDIT: I recieved the following from one of the DJ's:

Thanks so much for sending this - I think it is difficult for civillians,
myself included, to understand.

I read what retired General Lewis MacKenzie wrote in the Globe shortly after
our conversation on the air and have a bit better understanding of the
situation.

Thank you again - we need feedback.

- I want to thank them publicly for keeping an open mind

SEND EDIT:  Clairifcation sent to me by Radio Station DJ mentioned in my statement:

Thanks for the e-mail. First, I would like to clarify the quote attributed
to me that you refer to in your e-mail.  What I actually said was that I
would be shocked if ALL military personnel agreed with the caller we had
off-air who said we shouldn't lower the flag on the Peace Tower.  It was not
in reference to the banning of the media's presence at the arrival of the
fallen soldiers at Trenton.

I absolutely DO understand both sides when it comes to the aforementioned
media ban - especially if that ban comes at the request of the families.
With that said, as a member of the media but more importantly as a member of
a democratic society (the very thing we are trying to defend in places like
Afghanistan) I believe in the absolute right of the people of this nation to
not be subjected to secrecy of any sort when it comes to our government and
/ or military operations UNLESS it is a matter of national defence.
Democracy entails maintaining an open book policy so to speak. And as
mentioned in one of the postings on the link you provided, you can't have
your cake and eat it too.  The same people who cry fowl that the military in
this country doesn't receive enough media coverage are perhaps the same
people who are now crying fowl at the media's right to cover such an event.

And with that being said, let me go on to point out that in the media
coverage of such past events that I have seen, it has been done tastefully
and with the utmost respect to the fallen soldiers and their families.  And
for me that is the bottom line, this all comes down to respect and paying
respects to a young man or woman who has made the ultimate sacrifice in
defending my right to a free society.

 

[muffin]

I was just sent a good article from the Globe and Mail showing both sides of the debate:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060425.wxflags25/EmailBNStory/National/home


Ottawa fails fallen soldiers, critics say
Media will not be allowed on military base to cover return home of soldiers' bodies

BILL CURRY

From Tuesday's Globe and Mail

OTTAWA — The media will be banned from CFB Trenton today when the bodies of four Canadian soldiers killed over the weekend in Afghanistan return home.

The decision to mirror a practice that is controversial in the United States follows an announcement on Sunday that the flag on the Peace Tower will not be flown at half-mast to mark the deaths.

The two events have some in opposition accusing the Conservative government of a deliberate attempt to limit public knowledge of the human cost of Canada's mission in Afghanistan.

Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor issued a statement yesterday confirming the change, saying the arrival of the soldiers' bodies is a private event for the grieving families.

The minister noted that Canadian media in Afghanistan were allowed to cover a ceremony yesterday in which the soldiers' coffins were loaded onto a military plane.

"I have made the most appropriate decision during this emotional time for the families, that the media will not be present [today]," said a defence official who read the statement from the minister.

"There is a time to mourn and we want to respect the privacy needs of the grieving families. The repatriation of our fallen soldiers back to Canada is a private and solemn event between the families and the Canadian Forces."

A spokesman for the minister confirmed that the media ban will also apply in any future deaths of soldiers.

Liberal defence critic Ujjal Dosanjh called the media ban "absolutely un-Canadian" and "absolutely manipulative."

"It's extremely disturbing that this government would take a page out of [U.S. President George] Bush's modus operandi," Mr. Dosanjh said.

The Liberal MP said the media ban, coupled with the new flag policy, shows the Conservatives are trying to play down negative images of war so as not to lose public support.

"For the life of me, I can't imagine any other reason," he said.

The debate over the flag will take a deeply personal turn this afternoon when the Liberals read into the parliamentary record a letter sent more than two weeks ago by Lincoln Dinning calling for the flag on the Peace Tower to fly at half-mast to honour soldiers who die in the line of duty.

Mr. Dinning's son, Corporal Matthew Dinning, was one of four soldiers killed on Saturday in a roadside explosion.

The other soldiers were Bombardier Myles Mansell, Corporal Randy Payne and Lieutenant William Turner.

Liberal MP Paul Steckle received the letter, and said his party intends to move a motion that would honour the father's wishes regarding the flag.

Mr. O'Connor explained over the weekend that the government will lower the flag on the Peace Tower for Remembrance Day, but individual deaths will be honoured with half-mast flags at defence headquarters and within the service of the deceased, be it navy, army or air force.

Yesterday, the government of Alberta and Toronto City Hall both lowered their flags in honour of the soldiers.

The minister argued that the federal government is returning to an earlier practice and blamed the previous Liberal government for breaking with that tradition in favour of a policy that "unfairly distinguished some of those who died in Afghanistan from those who have died in current and previous operations."

However, not only the Liberals supported lowering the Peace Tower flag to honour previous military deaths.

On Oct. 7, 2004, after submariner Lieutenant Chris Saunders died in a fire on HMCS Chicoutimi, Conservative MP James Moore put forward a motion calling for flags on all government buildings to be flown at half-mast.

The motion was passed unanimously.

Veterans groups and the Bloc Québécois support the Conservative government's position yesterday not to fly the Peace Tower flag at half-mast when soldiers die.

New Democrat MP Peter Stoffer criticized Mr. O'Connor for chastising others when his party also pushed for the Peace Tower flag to be lowered.

"It's Mr. O'Connor not being briefed or not understanding the depth of what he is saying. The reality is, it was the Conservatives under James Moore," he said. "We have four soldiers who were killed and [people] don't want to see politicians carping over this issue. It should just be a matter of fact and get it done."

South of the border, U.S. President George W. Bush invoked the ban on media coverage of returning coffins in 2003 on the eve of the invasion of Iraq.

Since then, a few photos have emerged in the U.S. media through access-to-information requests, but the dead soldiers remain unidentified.

According to media reports, the U.S. ban was inspired by current Vice-President Dick Cheney in 1991 when he was defence secretary to former president George H.W. Bush. A ban was invoked at that time after U.S. television networks showed split-screen images of the president and returning coffins.

The ban was eased under Bill Clinton's administration and for the first two years of George W. Bush's administration.

 

[foerestedwarrior]

Liberal defence critic Ujjal Dosanjh called the media ban "absolutely un-Canadian" and "absolutely manipulative."

"It's extremely disturbing that this government would take a page out of [U.S. President George] Bush's modus operandi," Mr. Dosanjh said.

The Liberal MP said the media ban, coupled with the new flag policy, shows the Conservatives are trying to play down negative images of war so as not to lose public support.

"For the life of me, I can't imagine any other reason," he said.

I guess respecting the families right to morn in private is "un-Canadian".......

"I have made the most appropriate decision during this emotional time for the families, that the media will not be present [today]," said a defence official who read the statement from the minister.

"There is a time to mourn and we want to respect the privacy needs of the grieving families. The repatriation of our fallen soldiers back to Canada is a private and solemn event between the families and the Canadian Forces."

A spokesman for the minister confirmed that the media ban will also apply in any future deaths of soldiers.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Muffin - well done!  In a perfect world, every one of us planting one seed could help education (or am I WAY too naive about media in spite of issues I've had with some in the past?)

I'm all for the mission, and I'm all for the troops, but I'm going to play the devil's advocate here (risking an online kick in the 'nads), but how about this:

The Minister is quoted saying:  ""I have made the most appropriate decision during this most emotional time for the families ... The repatriation of our fallen soldiers back to Canada is a private and solemn event between the families and the Canadian Forces."

If that's the case, why not give families the option?  I'm going to guess that there may be some families who WANT the public to know about the sacrifice their loved one made.  Also, there's a case to be made that a service member killed in service:  
1)  is making a sacrifice not just for his/her family, but for Canada as a whole, and
2)  is not just a tragedy for the family, friends, and colleagues left behind, but for Canada as a whole.

Given that, isn't there a way to balance the need for privacy and respect with the need to show Canada that, "this is the cost of doing business as a member of the CF, and we're willing to pay that price".  Why not make it a family decision?  If there's more than one family involved, if even one family says "no", then it's no for everybody.  

Also, what's to stop the organizers from having the families meet the coffins, say, in a hangar away from the public if that's what they choose?  That way, the media get their pictures of the fallen coming off the plane and into a more private space, while protecting the families rom having to grieve in public if that's not what they want to do.

I notice the following in the Ottawa Citizen coverage:  "The unprecedented decision surprised the Defence Department -- including Gen. Rick Hillier, the chief of the defence staff.   They were only informed of the change in procedure on Sunday by Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor."  I'd be happy to hear from anyone who may have heard anything about the process - when I read this, I read that the uniform side (at least those talking to the Minister or DM, anyway) may not have had a problem with status quo, but that the political side decided.  Also, I notice there's nothing about this latest statement posted on the CF web page (when I checked 0856EDT) - ???? Again, I stand to be corrected, but I'm just wondering.

 

[Chimo]

I see once again our PAO branch is no where to be heard from. I hate their sit on the fence, never correct anything attitude. Why can't they provide accurate and timely information that serves the military to the media? In my opinion their job is to support us in our mission of defending Canada at home and abroad.

I suggest they should be the point of contact on "how the military" feels about the flag and ramp ceremony issues. 

 

[Infantry_wannabe]

I don't have an issue with the flag not being lowered. As unfortunate as it is, there are too many casualties now for that to be practical. It would be nice, but I understand the probable reasoning. It's obviously going to be a long commitment with more casualties. I'm sure the government wants to be able to appear that it is business as usual when a soldier is killed. It is sad, but it is also war. I don't like it, but I understand it.

What I do have an issue with is not showing the pictures of the caskets coming home. If that decision was made genuinely out of concern for families or at their request, then I'd say the media can shove it. But, it does seem to me to be like the decision by the US government not to show dead American soldiers coming home from Iraq. I don't like anything that smells like a cover-up of what is actually happening. Let's not make some of the same mistakes that the US has made. Let's allow the media to report the full consequences of the war, without trying to sanitize it any more than necessary.

The argument could be made that the public isn't informed enough to see the truth of war. That may be true, but if it is what does it mean to live in a democracy then? The people need to be informed. Besides, is this really helping us to convince the Canadian public of the worth of the cause in Afghanistan? I think the negative impression given by the belief that the government is trying to hide the truth would have more effect than would showing some clips of soldiers' caskets. I think this hurts our war effort rather than helps it.

I think the main reasons the Canadian public (as opposed to the professional protester crowd) is skeptical of the Afghanistan mission are
first of all ignorance, and second of all the complete distrust of the Bush administration and their launching and fighting of the Iraq war. Afghanistan unfortunately is tainted by that experience in the eyes of many people. I think hiding the caskets from the public adds further to both of these concerns. Not only does it look like the PM is following a Bush administration policy but he is hiding the sacrifices that these good people have made for their countries.

I don't think, when Canadians feel there is a good cause, that they will shrink from pain and sacrifice. The professional protester will, but the majority will not. They just need to be convinced of the cause. In my opinion, unless it is truly out of respect for the families, the decision to bar the media from showing caskets arriving home is not helping our cause. If true, that would be a shame. This mission is very important, and very right.

But this is just the opinion of a former reserve Private and current civy who wanted to offer an alternative viewpoint. If the families of the soldiers want the media barred and the flag raised then I think that opinion should stand. It is their opinions that really matter in this issue. Anyone know what they have to say?

 

[The Bread Guy]

Wannabe - here's how at least one family member feels, according to the Canadian Press:
http://www.recorder.ca/cp/National/060424/n0424127A.html

'' Just two weeks ago, Lincoln Dinning wrote Prime Minister Stephen Harper asking that federal flags be flown at half-mast in the event of future combat deaths.  That bit of civic lobbying became cruelly prescient - and emotional grist for a growing debate - when the Wingham, Ont., policeman's son, Cpl. Matt Dinning, became one of four Canadian soldiers killed by a roadside bomb in Afghanistan on the weekend. In the aftermath, the Conservative government has invoked a return to military protocol and refused to lower the Maple Leaf on Parliament Hill. ''

Chimo - VERY good point, although like any other federal gov't agency/dep't, it's the politicians who (eventually) have the final say.  I'm guessing a lot of PAO staff are often gritting their teeth as much as you and the others here, but like all other members of the military, they're there to follow orders.

At least in a democracy, we have the option of changing who's giving the orders via ballot once in a while if we're not happy with them....

 

[Bobbyoreo]

IMHO This should only be for the families and it should be up to them. Its hard enough to deal with this once but to have to go home as a family member and watch it on late night news is like reliving it over and over. I don't have any faith in the Media..they always change things around to suit themselves.

 

[Springroll]

Also, what's to stop the organizers from having the families meet the coffins, say, in a hangar away from the public if that's what they choose?  That way, the media get their pictures of the fallen coming off the plane and into a more private space, while protecting the families rom having to grieve in public if that's not what they want to do.

IIRC, they did that very thing for LT Chris Saunders when he was brought back to Halifax.
What I do not like seeing is the media zooming in on the faces of the family members.
I feel that is truly tasteless.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Springroll - didn't realize that - thx!

In the words of the famous BritCom "Yes, Minister":  '' "This would create a dangerous precedent". Translation: "If we do the right thing now, we might have to do the right thing again next time". '' 

 

[camochick]

I am the spouse of someone in Afghanistan right now and I am glad that they are not letting the media at the coming home ceremony. Being in the military community you hear alot of stories and word is that they hounded poor Mrs. Costall so much she had to be removed from her PMQ. If it's true I think it's sick.

If god forbid something happened to my husband I would have words for those who choose to stuff a camera in my face without my consent. Its a rough time right now for everyone in the military community and the last thing anyone needs is the media making a big deal about not being able to film the poor families in their darkest hour. It's sick that they somehow think this is a right . The government isnt hiding the fact that soldiers are dead, they are trying to help the families grieve with a little peace and quiet. If the families want to talk to the media then they should do so.

As for the flag flying, I have no issue with it not being flown half mast. What happens if we start having casualties a few times a week. Should we keep the flag lowered all the time. It makes me wonder if those crying fowl even attend ceremonies on rememberance day, because while I am standing for the parade  I see a heck of alot of people going into the mall. I also see alot of people without poppies on their jackets, poppies on their jackets in july, work places that dont allow for people to have a moment of silence etc. It seems like alot of people are jumping on the band wagon about the flag thing, when perhaps they should direct their efforts towards our veterans and our legions who right now are suffering.

 

[Pea]

Camo.. awesome post! I couldn't have said any of that better.

 

[The Bread Guy]

If families are in ANY way hounded by media, then PAO's should just say (or be allowed to say):  "Listen, this person is being subject to WAY too much intrusion, and if media outlets don't cut it out and give them some privacy, then you'll ALL be cut off."

BTW, in case it's not clear, I do support the mission, I think about those fallen, those injured, those still at their posts, and those anxiously awaiting a loved one's return.  Good to see firmly put views all around...

I'm off this means for a while (off on holidays), but feel free to diss me as you see fit 

Take care, all...

 

[military granny]

Camo
Great post. I also have a young man there only difference is its my son. And when I said the media are vultures earlier in this thread it was from personal experience. Leave the families to grieve on their terms, the rest of Canadian citizens can, I'm sure, grieve for these families and soldiers without the media plastering it all over the news for two or three days.

 

[parkie]

I have witnessed the most tasteless things on the news of late, Families of soldiers, Families of fallen RCMP, coming out of churches and memorial services, in the depths of their anguish and in the midst of their mourning their loved one’s. Well! There are the cameras catching every emotion, to publish it over the nation.And for what! So someone can sit at home and say ‘Geez !Look at that,She must have really loved him!eh!’
Has we speak; news agencies are showing the explosion that took these brave men’s lives.
How utterly tasteless.
I myself do not want to know how these brave lads passed. I would much prefer to know how they LIVED, but that wouldn’t sell probably, would it!
Why in the world do we need to see their remains coming home, because death sells, and the media will squeeze every drop that they can from it? Knowing they died for me and mine, Is enough for me! The rest is none of my business!
  My two cents, on the flag, leave it up! They served it at full mast! Remember them at full  Mast, Remember them how they served!
                                                                              Thank you. parkie

 

[Big Foot]

Very well said, Parkie. I agree with what you have said.

 

[army girl/army wife]

Ok I don't post much but this issue really %$%^)_! pissed me off this morning on the way to work. It was on our local radio station all morning. I am a militatry member, spouse and have  family member's in or retired from the military. None of my family think the flag should be at half mast at the Peace Tower. It is only suppossed to be at half mast on Nov 11.
  That has been in affect for 60 to 80 yrs I believe. It was not flown at half mast when a Canadian soldier died in Korea, or anytime for that matter until the Liberals decided to change the policy. Why should it be any different now? My grandfather was explaining this to me last night, as he was in Korea. He said "the flag never flew at half mast for them, that it wasn't suppossed to, so what gives the *&%^#$@ reporters the right to question it now" He is really upset at the reporters about the fuss they're making.
  And as for media being at the airport when the soldiers are repatriated, they have no right to say that they should be there. I for one, would not want them there if that was my husband, or my brother, or a friend being repatriated. My grief is my personal business, not something to be flashed on the 5 O Clock news about the grieving family, so a paper can sell more copies, or a news station gets more viewers.
  They're frigging leeches on society, every last media outlet.

Ok I'll end my rant now.

 

[GAP]

When you lose a family member it is hard to deal with. All the conflicting emotions are there and it is a vulnerable time for those involved. The last thing you want is someone interpreting your body and facial reactions, nor asking about your feelings at that moment.

Leave them alone.

 

[COBRA-6]

And when I said the media are vultures earlier in this thread it was from personal experience.

I prefer the term "scavengers of human misery"...

 

[probum non poenitet]

Camochick,
yes Pte Costall's widow was hounded out of her PMQ by some media here acting way beyond the pale. And yes, they got a spanking.

Some media have integrity and professionalism. Some don't.
Some are fine people, some are self-promoting paycheque-to-paycheque losers trying to make a name.

The media learn that they tend to get more flies with honey than with vinegar. The army can and will throw reporters off DND property if they don't play with in the grounds of good taste.

That doesn't mean we can muzzle them if we don't like what they say. It is irritating as hell, but the price of democracy. It's sure better than the alternative.
Bear in mind some families find comfort with media attention, some hate it, it seems about 50/50.

Unfortunately, many if not most of the media are not in the noble pursuit of the truth. They are in the meritricious pursuit of the dollar.
Because of the huge amount of competition between radio, print, TV, you have to get there "th' fastest with th' mostest" to get ahead in the media world.
Truth, accuracy, moral stand, -- not so important. The shiniest and quickest story is. Wake up the widow and get her on for 11 o'clock.

Also, most media don't want to be pereceived as being "in the army's pocket."
The last time we were in a major war (Korea in my opinion), it was a very different culture. If you deliberately undercut your army, you were seen as a traitor, not as a counter-culture hero.
Tempus freakin' fugit.

But whatever cause celebre the media adopt (pro-army, anti-Bush, pro-Sarajevo, anti-Somalia) have no doubt their goodwill can stop and turn on a dime.
Remember this -- the media did what the Germans didn't -- wipe out an entire Canadain Airborne Battalion.

Love them, hate them, we NEED them. We lose public opinion, we lose the war. We know it, and our enemies know it. I wish the media understood that, but again, they by and large serve the $$. It's the root of much of the contempt between soldiers and the media. We are motivated by very different things.

The general public is not blameless in this. One cornerstone of democracy is an informed public.
Unfortunately, if it takes longer than 3 minutes to explain, many Canadians tune out. "All people get the government they deserve."
Apathetic people get an apathetic society.

Many Canadians pay more attention to reality TV and the hockey playoffs than the world situation. They may be waking up, but the media should as well.

Call me crazy, but instead of careerism and the mighty $$$, if the media (and politicans) got their heads around truth over sensation, reasoned debate over the sound-byte, we would have a better society.

Likewise, if the public spent several hours reading well-researched arguments on all sides before responding to an opinion poll on a controversial topic, we would be better off.

The problem is not 'images of coffins' or not. The problem is a public and media too damn lazy to read a book thicker than People magazine.