Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Sorry for your loss but this is just stupid,

Quote,
But reporting the facts is what these people do, they can't in most instances parse out the truth.

The whole reason of "free press" is to ensure the general public has the truth, anything else is just wrong. Some people may be happy getting their news from the National Inquirer/ News Of the World but I expect something more....

 

[GAP]

I have lurked this thread for the last couple of days and I think now I should talk.
. Taken to the n'th degree they are in the news business and when a fine young man dies, its news,  their motives are the most noble in the world, but they're not advertising copy writers.

I know where your sentiments come from, but if you read through the thread, you would have noticed that most everybody was not slamming the press for reporting the comments, but for NOT following through. A few simple phone calls would have corrected much of the misleading hysteria they created, therefore they, as professionals, and they are, did NOT do their job. They went with the first trick pony they could find, did not substantiate it, sensationalized it, and then, had the gall to be offended when questioned about their ethics.

 

[cplcaldwell]

Bruce Monkhouse- Perhaps my grammar was confusing, "parsing out the truth" perhaps should have read "parsing though all the facts to get the truth". NEWS is NEWS, it is facts as they appear at that moment. The truth may be a little more escoteric and involve and the related details. Reporters; they do not have the luxury of getting all the jots and tittles, the reporter had the story and reported it.

Perhaps there is a difference between a reporter who is tied to a deadline and a journalist that has the time to assemble all the facts outside of the constraints of 'news' and document the whole thing.

GAP- But the press did follow though. We got Mr. A. Boneca's input yesterday. And reference my point above, of course they went with the first trick pony; that's the news.

News is news and it is messy, but without doing the news the way they do it, we would still be waiting for the Titanic story.

Thank you both for your insightful comments.

 

[George Wallace]

You're an Idiot!

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/47109/post-409523.html#msg409523

Of course you are not an Idiot, but that is an example of what we are talking about.  The media has garnered your attention with bold, misleading titles on the front pages, and then printed hastily gathered, and perhaps inaccurate, facts on the front pages.  Later when the more accurate facts are found and presented, they have hiddent them away in the back pages.  This is what we are dealing with and talking about.  Professionalism.  Accountability.  Funny how we have to be professional and accountable for our actions here, but the media do not have to uphold the same ethical, nor moral values.  Have you seen any appologies from them for their misleading headlines or stories?  Have you seen any retractions of these false and misleading stories or misconceptions?  No.  They are acting 'above' the rights that they claim are so necessary in our society, and then slapping us in the faces with it.   

 

[GAP]

GAP- But the press did follow though. We got Mr. A. Boneca's input yesterday. And reference my point above, of course they went with the first trick pony; that's the news.
News is news and it is messy, but without doing the news the way they do it, we would still be waiting for the Titanic story.

As thoughtful as it would have been to get Mr. Boneca's input, that was not the time and place, and that is not the issue. My comments were directed at the disinformation the media spun about inadequate training, being lied to about the mission, and a whole lot of other stuff that was FACTUALLY wrong, and has to this day, not been corrected.

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

My comments were directed at the disinformation the media spun about inadequate training, being lied to about the mission, and a whole lot of other stuff that was FACTUALLY wrong, and has to this day, not been corrected.

As were mine.  Unfortunately, some have chosen to ignore the editorial and the comments and to concentrate on their view that our opinions constitute an "attack" on the press.

 

[cplcaldwell]

George Wallace: I may be an idiot (LOL). Unfortunately, whether I am an idiot or not, there are a lot of idiots out there. They will read the headlines and jump right to the end of the process, generating a furor. (Some of which I respectfully submit is due to our anticipation of their jumping off). I doubt it is the reporter's job to hold the story until all the facts are in. A reporter must report that facts as they exist at this moment.

I do not think that there is need for a retraction. The facts as they occurred (at that moment) were reported. This was big news and filled the blogs and the letters to the editor as people reacted to that news. Further facts came to light and were reported (sorry can't research it all now, but I know at least MND said that troops are volunteers, trained to a standard and had to demonstrate that standard before getting stuck in).Quite true, it did not get the attention, but as further facts emerged they were reported.  Not the papers' faults if people didn't read the whole paper. Bigger news was emerging from India and the Lebanon.

Now you made a post a while ago asking why 'the lies were on the front page and the truth was on the back page'. Unfortunately it seems that's the way the news works. Leading to me to a post from Cobra-6 about 'scavangers of humans history' , but I digress....

Both statements are true, but I don't think it constitutes misconduct (IMHO).

Why? Are they playing fast and loose with the facts , no I dont't think so. "He said, I reported." I guess I am not saying that reporting the facts as they exist now constitutes, ipso facto, the whole truth, nor, by the same means can it considered misconduct unless the follow up point of view is not reported.

Once again, thank you for your insightful comments, but let's remember I am being the devil's advocate here having seen this up close. ('When asked, Police commented that at this time alcohol did not appear to be a factor in the crash' What at 1000 hrs ??etc ). A reporters job is to ask a question, get an answer , report it and develop the story. Reporters are not historians, they only provide the raw material for it, and some times that raw material is incomplete, even inaccurate or dreck.

 

[GAP]

That sounds like an excuse for bad reporting. They ARE accountable, as this thread attests.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Quote,
('When asked, Police commented that at this time alcohol did not appear to be a factor in the crash' What at 1000 hrs ??etc ).

Again, I mean no disrespect for your loss, but how would you have felt that the very same day you found out the headline that night was,
Alcohol Not Ruled Out As Factor In Death
Was Drinking and Driving Responsible?
Police Dodge Alcohol Question

..any one of those could have been the headline of the local paper causing even more suffering and then days later at page 7 a small story about not being a factor "even though it was being investigated" forever leaving a doubt in the readers mind?

 

[Mike Bobbitt]

I'll shy away from the banter and drop in briefly to say that CTV Newsnet had a short segment on Cpl. Boneca's return to Canada. I watched with baited breath, which I let out in relief when the segment ended with no mention of comments made on either side. It was strictly fact, and the way news should be reported. Kudos to CTV for not continuing to sensationalize things to a generally unwitting Canadian audience.

 

[cplcaldwell]

Bruce Monkhouse: Certainly, no disrespect taken. However, I doubt anything could have made feel better or worse at that point in time.

Your point is valid and we do see exactly what you illustrated all to often. In fact what I (we) got was a  piece several days later (that even Christie Blatchford would have been proud of..) so, in all in all, it (that part of whole debacle), turned out as a wash for me, maybe that's why I am being such a sod about this.This is part of what I mean about allowing the facts to emerge, first reports are often inaccurate, but seldom untrue. Most journalists, I think, would admit to this. Then, given, second reports are on pg 6 and not read by a lot of folks.   

Frankly I don't have a complete answer for you, perhaps here is where the lurkers from the fifth estate could enlighten us on how to write a headline?

GAP: Ack, your last, complete. Keeping posting brief.

Mike Bobbitt: I watched CBC live last night, had a little cry.
CTV can usually be counted on for this (IMHO) they did report the initial comments but did not belabour the point. The initial issue is no longer news. Oh and reference "a generally unwitting Canadian audience.." FIVE by FIVE.

 

[Jarnhamar]

The media, if anything, excel at being able to manipulate the truth in such a way that it appears to be something else or perhaps lead readers into certain directions.  It's their thing, they have a knack for turning late soldiers into disillusionment for a mission. To turn soldiers tired from working long hours in 55-60C heat into careless soldiers leaving their weapons around.

Again, I mean no disrespect for your loss, but how would you have felt that the very same day you found out the headline that night was,
Alcohol Not Ruled Out As Factor In Death
Was Drinking and Driving Responsible?
Police Dodge Alcohol Question

Bruce I think that's an excellent point!

I think this is thee main issue that started this whole thread.  The media reporting this story presented the "truth" in such a way that it appeared to want the readers to believe a certain thing or fill the readers head with ideas. We know they do it. They know we do it. We cry foul and they cry free speech.

People unfortunately (though understandably) let their emotions get the better of them in this thread.  We want to defend our mission in which we believe in and defend this slain brothers privacy when it comes to 'talking shit'.  Our media friends want to defend their name, their freedom of press (?) and want to present an unbiased reporting platform (which we've called into question).

I'm not ready to condemn the media, I think they do more good than bad.  You find bad apples in the army and you find bad apples int he media.  In both cases when one person does something it has national consequences.  I think we in the army feel like we are held more accountable for our actions what we report and what we say.

 

[mdh]

I'm not ready to condemn the media, I think they do more good than bad.

I think it's plain for all to see what the problem is and I don't think all journalists are to blame. You get people like Christie Blatchford, Matthew Fisher and Graeme Smith who actually have the parts to travel to Kandahar and see for themselves what is happening. They are almost unanimously in support of what we are doing over here and the usually provide excellent insights into the lives of our troops. What's more, all of the reporters over here seem to be emphatically refuting claims that morale is low or that troops are being "misled".

Mortar Guy/ Ghost778 raise some important points. We should be careful about giving the impression that the CF despises the media or that we are engaged in sweeping generalizations about the state of the 5th estate.

In the end we need the media to deliver our messages to the general public; in fact I would go further and suggest that we need the media more than they need us. 

The army mission can't succeed fully without a parallel success in generating and sustaining public support (the politics behind the AF mission are shakey enough).

I'm not sure it serves our long-term cause when we forget that there are quite a few notable media allies supporting the CF (as MG points out). The last thing we need is to breed suspicion and hostility among soldiers which might undermine valuable initiatives such as the embed program.

Whether we like it or not the media holds all the cards.

mdh

 

[paracowboy]

bollocks. The media needs us far more than we do them. Without us, they have no stories to distort/invent in order to sell their advertising space. Without our casualties to gloat over like ghouls, they have no way to further their political agenda. Without us performing our duties in a professional manner, they wouldn't have the Right to a Free Press that they hide their lies behind. We give them that Right.

 

[2 Cdo]

bollocks. The media needs us far more than we do them. Without us, they have no stories to distort/invent in order to sell their advertising space. Without our casualties to gloat over like ghouls, they have no way to further their political agenda. Without us performing our duties in a professional manner, they wouldn't have the Right to a Free Press that they hide their lies behind. We give them that Right.

Well said! :cheers:

 

[Centurian1985]

I would have to take a position between the two of you.  The media is not inherently evil, nor are they innocently misguided.

I have found that the media does not deliberately portray us incorrectly, at least not all the time anyway.  Many of the media are just biased, incorrectly informed, or dont care if they portray military facts incorrectly.  They are not neccesarily incompetent, but are trapped by their own thinking.

1) Ignorance - knowing as little as most of them do (or dont) about the military they just dont understand how misinformed they appear when they consistently use incorrect terminology (i.e. interchanging armoured cars and tanks), or when they overemphasize normal military tasks as if they were extraordinary happenings (i.e. making a big deal about planning for operations in foreign countries before a deployment is approved, when that is part of our normal job).  

2) Stereotype - most newsies still see military personnel the same way as we were protrayed back in the 1970's.  They have no idea that these stereotypes were shattered years ago (despite perpetuation by some of our own people higher up), nor do they understand that we are not like the military forces portrayed in movies, nor are we exactly the same as our neighbors to the south, upon which most of them base their stereotypes.

3) Lack of Response - this is partly our own fault as a government department.  By consistently staying silent on many issues, this encourages the media to make their own assumptions.  When lacking information they will end up going with what they think they know (hence 1 and 2).  Our PR people need to be much more proactive and let the media know when their reporting is inaccurate or skewed, instead of the most commonly quoted phrase of 'no comment'.  If the media wont print retractions of errors, then the CF should be producing its own on-line reports pointing out inaccuracies and misconceptions.  

4) Its about making a buck! - nothing we can do about this one.  For every newspaper and media outlet, its about making money and keeping the shareholders happy.  If they can do it by slamming an easy no-response target like the CF, then thats what they will keep doing.            

 

[cplcaldwell]

The press today is an army with carefully organized weapons, the journalists its officers, the readers its soldiers. But, as in every army, the soldier obeys blindly, and the war aims and operating plans change without his knowledge. The reader neither knows nor is supposed to know the purposes for which he is used and the role he is to play. There is no more appalling caricature of freedom of thought. Formerly no one was allowed to think freely; now it is permitted, but no one is capable of it any more. Now people want to think only what they are supposed to want to think, and this they consider freedom.

Oswald Spengler

 

Now that was a nasty thing for me to do wasn't it?

 

[Centurian1985]

Nice quote but completely misses the important roles played by editors and owners/shareholders who have the greatest influence over what is and is not published. 

 

[cplcaldwell]

Centurian 1985: Quite right. Shall we extend the metaphor (or is that an allegory??) : General's(Editors), DM's (Publishers), Ministers (Owners)?

As to the point I was trying to make. I am not so sure that the 'Press' is the entire point here, and if it is, it is more for the reasons you pointed out than because of any general malevolence. That and the point, that the reader, at least in this context, is woefully unprepared to digest these issues.

Let's not forget the reader here, after all a trip to the blogs at the Globe and Mail give a fast (and totally unscientific) insight into the depth of knowledge the "average person" has on these subjects.

 

[MarkOttawa]

cplcaldwell: More on Oswald:

"The Decline of the West"
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/006671.html

Mark
Ottawa