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

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

Been there,  Nicely said!

  It is IMHO that soldiers who have been so intensely involved in activities such as nation building through their activities in combat that on departure they must detach, its a natural human reaction to deal with leaving the job undone and handing over to the next group. Combat and combat activities are the height of commitment mentally, physically and emotionally it requires the brain to undo that intensity on preparing to go home to the real world. As Been there has said, in the last few weeks we all have doubts, its natural.
 
George Wallace said:
First off, they are not reporting what "He Said", they are reporting what "His Girlfriend's FATHER Said".  A whole different ballgame there.  It is Third Hand or even Fourth Hand "Speculation" which would be unbelievable in all other circles. 

Last night on The National, it was his girlfriend that was saying that.
 
May I ask for a bit of consideration here for the reporters?  They are, after all, only reporting what they were specifically told by members of the family.  They didn't make this stuff up.
Whoever provided these quotes to the media did so for a reason.  Maybe we should ask THEM what their motivation is.

Of course, it was inevitable that, after years of involvement in Afghanistan with nothing but unstinting praise for our soldiers, someone had to eventually sound a dissenting trumpet.  These things come in waves.

Please don't thump the media too hard.  After all, these folks have for a very long time been singing our praises, not only in news coverage but in editorials.  And we don't hesitate to make use of them when we want to get our point across.  Your average journalist has no idea what training, preparation etc a reservist goes through before deploying.  And given the pressure of their jobs, they have very little chance to find out unless someone pointedly explains it to them.



 
To give everyone a bit of a break from the media bashing the military, and us bashing the media, I've just posted a brief (LT 2 minutes) video, using public domain photos, backed by the "Skye Boat Song" (official slow march of the Lake Superior Scottish Regiment).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPsogi_7jDo

A bit of a chance to pause, reflect and remember....

 
tonykeene said:
May I ask for a bit of consideration here for the reporters?  They are, after all, only reporting what they were specifically told by members of the family.  They didn't make this stuff up.
Whoever provided these quotes to the media did so for a reason.  Maybe we should ask THEM what their motivation is.

Of course, it was inevitable that, after years of involvement in Afghanistan with nothing but unstinting praise for our soldiers, someone had to eventually sound a dissenting trumpet.  These things come in waves.

Please don't thump the media too hard.  After all, these folks have for a very long time been singing our praises, not only in news coverage but in editorials.  And we don't hesitate to make use of them when we want to get our point across.  Your average journalist has no idea what training, preparation etc a reservist goes through before deploying.  And given the pressure of their jobs, they have very little chance to find out unless someone pointedly explains it to them.

While I don't disagree with your sentiments, you have a better perspective of their process than most of us.

What I question is the use of 2nd, and 3rd hand comments, no context, as statements of fact, when the person cannot confirm nor refute them.  This is not good journalism, simply sensationalism at a time when we should be remembering and honoring the soldier. The attention getting antics of other people, whether through grief or something else has no place here and should not have been sensationalized as it was.
 
I'm sorry tonykeene, but you are a biased observer here.  In the most part we have not narrowed our sights in on the Press, we have been including them in with the people and organizations who seem to be promoting a Political Agenda.  The Press are as guilty as the persons making those statements when they replicate them in the following manner:

"He expected to be on patrol, not fighting a war for someone else,'' said DeCorte. "He wasn't ready for that.''

That statement was it's own paragraph in the news article.  It was meant to stand out and catch the eye.  The highlighted (By me.) portion is a Political Statement replicated by the Press to further a Political Agenda.  Are the Press free, or are they Pawns to this 'group'?  Your call.

The Press can be considered "guilty by association" in this case, don't you think?

[EDIT to add link to news article in question.]  http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060710/canada_soldier_boneca_060710/20060710?hub=TopStories
 
It is disgusting  in the extreme and preposterous for anyone to suggest morale here is low.

Matthew Fisher, CanWest  reporter with the Canadian Forces in Afghanistan, says in an interview this morning  (audio at link)
http://www.cfra.com/chum_audio/Matthew_Fisher_July11.mp3

on CFRA, Ottawa.  He is talking about media coverage of Cpl. Anthony Joseph Boneca's death.

You must listen to the whole thing.  Two more samples:

This is real war..and then to be bogged down by the typical small-minded Canadian wishy-washy issues, I had hoped Canada was emerging from this period of self-doubt but apparently it isn't.

...he received exactly the same infantry training as everyone else who came here.

And just at this moment the Globe's Margaret Wente gives up (full text not officially online).  Pitiful.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060711.wxcowent11/BNStory/National/home

Repairing Afghanistan is a noble cause. It's also mission impossible. I suspect that, before too long, more and more Canadians will decide that it's not our fight.

Mark
Ottawa
 
Well, please understand that when someone says something that is different, or that goes against the flow, it makes news automatically.  As a young reporter 30 years ago, I would have put that quote on its own too, for very simple reasons.  It stands out.
The folks who write the news have, as individuals, no agenda versus the military or anyone else.  In fact, the many journalists now with our soldiers on operations are, by and large, great supporters of them.  Some have even been accused, by those opposed to military intervention, of jingoism.  They just can't win.
I've been through this myself.  When reporting on the courts, the defence layers accused me of being a tool of the Crown.  The Crown Attorney bitched that I was a left-leaning bleeding heart liberal who wanted to see scumbags let off easy.  When reporting labour, the unions accused me of being a tool of the management, and the owners bitched that I was a lefty union sympathizer.  All I did was write down what people told me, and I tried to put it in an interesting and appealing format.

The media, as institutions, have a natural liberal tendency in democracies.  After all, in right wing countries control of the media is endemic.  But I have never, ever heard an editor, in all my decades of experience, tell a reporter to go out and "get" the military, the politician, the company owner etc.  While it is true that one paper hates the Government of the day, and the other praises it, both will report a car crash, a fire or a soldier's death in almost the same way.  That's not bias, it's just news.

Most media funerals are self catered.  The reporters went to the family to find out how the family felt.  The family had the opportunity to say whatever they wanted.  This person obviously had a message he wanted to get out.  I'm sure the reporters did not ask:" Please say something negative about your soldier."  The message could just as easily have been a positive one.

When other family members of other soldiers have been widely quoted as praising their loved one's belief in what he or she was doing, we did not bitch at the reporters for being biased.  Talking to the family of someone who has died tragically is a heart-wrenching experience, believe me.  I've had to do it myself.  Just because someone has said something that upsets us, we should not bitch at the reporters for doing what they are paid to do...reporting.

Most reporters in Canada are young people trying to do a good job.  They don't have the benefit of 20 years experience in the police, fire department or the military.  They are not trained and experienced lawyers or engineers or anything else.  They ask questions, and they get answers.  They of course sometimes get it wrong, but so do we.

Let's look where the information or the quote came from.  And remember, the reporters will quote someone who rebuts this statement, just as readily.  All it takes is someone with the knowledge, and the guts, to step up to the microphone and speak out.


 
Matt Fisher interview WELL worth listening to!  Thanks for sharing!
 
milnewstbay said:
To give everyone a bit of a break from the media bashing the military, and us bashing the media, I've just posted a brief (LT 2 minutes) video, using public domain photos, backed by the "Skye Boat Song" (official slow march of the Lake Superior Scottish Regiment).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPsogi_7jDo

A bit of a chance to pause, reflect and remember....

Thank you for posting that.
It was very humbling and does help to put things back into perspective.
 
Sorry Tony, today's London Free Press has the lead story, front page, above the fold, larger than normal headline font and "boxed" for maximum visual impact:

"He was 'misled'" : http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/News/National/2006/07/11/1678530-sun.html

What point are they trying to make?

Oh yes, the sub head: But the Tory government brushes aside accusations from Cpl. Anthony Boneca's friends and family

I wonder what sort of impression this will make on the people who walk past the news stand? Where are the super sized headlines and arresting visuals about the success of various PRT's and the day to day activities of the troops? I am pretty close to writing this paper and others who publish this tripe off as "hostile media".

 
big bad john said:
I didn't trust reporters when I was serving.  I still don't trust reporters now.  If they don't have the story they want, they will find a way to get it in many circumstance's.  When I talk to the press I want a witness and I want it very clear what is said from experience.  In this case as has been mentioned I have heard nothing directly from the young Corporal.  Just some distressed family and loved ones.  We can feel their pain and understand it.  Not like it, but understand it.

If I may, they're not reporters, BBJ, they're journalists, and that is what the problem is.  Reporters tell what happened. "Journalists" spin things. At some point along the way the "reporters" decided they were more important than just laying out facts, and became "journalists" who exist largely to protect their own interests.

[quote author=Tony Keene]
May I ask for a bit of consideration here for the reporters?  They are, after all, only reporting what they were specifically told by members of the family.  They didn't make this stuff up. Whoever provided these quotes to the media did so for a reason.  Maybe we should ask THEM what their motivation is.[/quote]

See above - we don't have "reporters" we now have "journalists" who put personal interests ahead of national ones while claiming to be acting in the interest of the public's "need to know."

And given the pressure of their jobs, they have very little chance to find out unless someone pointedly explains it to them.

If they can't "report" accurately maybe they need to STFU. Sometimes reporting accurately means knowing when NOT to say something, even if true. Check out Walter Cronkite's stab in the back after TET - I'd hate to think Canada's mission to Afghanistan might be compromised because some big mouthed "journalists" are looking to sell stories.
 
Tony
I have met a lot of reporters, most are nice, but rarely understand what they are reporting, they also have to follow the requests of their editors and lose control of a story when submitted. I Have seen a few furious at their own people for the hack job that makes it into paper/news. Editors need to sell papers and will make changes to stories in order to sell, that is the nature of the beast. When reading stories that I was involved, I estimated that the Province generally got 40% of their facts wrong, made wonder about everything else written. Many of the news media here have an agenda also and if you are pro-military or into firearms you are fair game for them.
 
Looks like the family has decided to bar the media from the repatriation ceremonies.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060710/canada_soldier_boneca_060711/20060711?hub=TopStories
 
I know, and I understand, that those big headlines look awful.  But the headlines are larger simply because this story is different.  For 16 deaths now, family and friends have said almost the same thing.  He/she loved the military, believed in the mission, etc.  The coverage also has been uniformly sympathetic and positive.  We did not accuse the media of bias, or of having an agenda, when vthose stories were published.

Now, suddenly, the soldier's girlfriend's father has released his personal e-mails.  Why?  He is the one being quoted.  The Ottawa Citizen this morning prints the e-mails, and quotes the girl's father.  The reporters are reporting, they are not making it up.  And the headlines are bigger because, precisely because, this is different.  It goes against the flow.

The Globe and Mail, the Toronto Star, the SUN chain and others have been filled with pages and pages of massively positive coverage from their embedded reporters in Afghanistan.  TV networks have done the same.  For the first time since Korea, the CF are getting more positive, in-depth coverage than they have in decades.  We have created a whole new generation of war correspondents who understand the Forces, use the correct terminology and who support, by and large, our soldiers and their missions.  Coverage of the new CDS has been close to hagiographic.  (Big word of the day!)

The reporters do not have an agenda, other than to report important news.  When someone hands over e-mails or letters indicating a soldier was disillusioned or whatever, they are gonna crank it out, big time.  That's what they are there for.  Had his family handed over letters and e-mails showing him as dedicated to the mission, loving being a soldier (as was done with other casualties) they would have reported that.  And they did.  16 times.

We didn't accuse them of being biased then, we shouldn't do it now.




 
Throwing my 2 cents in here....FYI, I'm leaving for Afghanistan two weeks from today.

First of all, RIP to the good Cpl.  He will not be forgotten.

I also think that some of the media coverage is disgraceful.  I'm sure that there are a percentage of people over there that are'nt happy to be there.  After watching all the coverage on CTV, I think the MND summed it up best, it's the military.  Once you volunteer to go over, you don't have a choice as to what ops you partake in.  I just feel a little disappointed in the media coverage and all the comments coming from his girlfriend's father, etc, etc.  I can understand that they're hurting now, however, this kind of stuff belittles the sacrifice that this mbr made, IMHO.  I think it's going to paint a picture that most of us feel that way to the Canadian public, and from what I've seen with the troops about to depart with me, most of us are chomping at the bit to get over there.  I believe in the mission, if I did'nt, I would'nt have volunteered to go over.  As we well know, there are more than enough mechanisms in place within the DAG process where a mbr can easily get out of a deployment if they want to.  It just made me a little hot under the collar, probably because I'm this close to leaving and you see this type of coverage and know that it's going to affect how we're portrayed to the Canadian public.  Even if we, as soldiers, feel that this mission is wrong, that decision has been made far above our collective heads.  All that's left to do is soldier on and complete the task at hand.  As my grandfather likes to say "When you're in the Army, you're like a limp d**k, you go wherever you're pushed".  Pardon the language, but he is a WW2 vet :D

Just my two cents..
 
Ghost778 said:
Maybe we are bending over backwards a little too far to accomodate the media. I think the media and our relations with them is very important but honestly, kicking troops out of their own lav so a reporter can tag along?

Not cool.  
I can only hope Canadians don't condone putting our troops in more danger than required in order to get a few snapshots and a story from an "embeded" reporter.
Ditto

HL
 
The media in Canada like the US are left of center and very much the attack dogs of the Liberal party in Canada and the Democrat party in the US. Fairness in reporting is lacking whenever they can slag the Tories or the Republicans. In this case the media is giving the gf's father as much coverage as possible.Where is the self restraint ? The Editor in Chief could post a notice on the front page that they would honor the memory of CPL Boneca by not printing anything that didnt come from the Boneca family.
So instead of seeing a young soldier killed in the service of his country people will see the soldier remembered as something less than what he deserves. Very sad. The media is beyond defense on this and the girl friend's father is an idiot. Releasing email's which are private communication is very hurtful to the Boneca family, their friends and the Regiment he served. The public needs to write in to their papers and demand an end to this so that CPL Boneca can go to his final rest with the honor he deserves.
 
I violently disagree with "tonykeene".  The media hasn't reported "important news", they've been searching for controversy and leaping upon it like a pack of ravenous dogs when it appears.

There's no - as in zero - attempt to investigate the background to a story.  Instead we get sensationalism, spurred on by a rather dubious source - the girlfriend's father.  Where is the attempt to determine what the selection and training process for Reserve personnel is?  Where is the explanation as to how Reservists are employed in theatre?  Where is the story outlining how soldiers are fed in the field and how they're supplied?  Where are the caveats that the immediate family has not been interviewed?  Surely that is "important news".  How is the publishing of private e-mails - NOT provided by the family - newsworthy?

Moreover, where are our PAFF people to sort questions like this out?

I don't believe that the media has a political agenda.  Instead, they're after sensationalism and controversy in order to pursue commercial and careerist objectives.  They have behaved abysmally towards fallen soldiers' families in the past (recently here in Edmonton) and invariably get both detail and context completely wrong.  More often than not, the media fails to conduct even the most basic of research before publishing a story - to the point where we still see ranks and units misidentified and operations misconstrued.  This is worse than poor reporting, it is selective attention to detail designed to generate controversy.  The media presence in Kandahar isn't called the "death watch" for nothing...

They ARE biased - towards their own agendas - and have demonstrated that bias time and time again.

 
I seem to recall talk about reporters, upon hearing of a slain Edmonton soldiers death, canvasing the street he lived on in the early lightless hours of the morning.  Apparently they found out what street he was on but not his address so they took to going door to door.

the soldier's girlfriend's father has released his personal e-mails.

Personally I think this is horrible.  I understand someones point of view of 'wanting the truth to be known' however I think he is failing to take into consideration what we've already established here.  Soldiers talk shit to relieve stress.

Whether these emails are an accurate or truthful representation of this soldiers feelings I can't help but feel did anyone ask him if his private emails could be read?

It all boils down to whether this fighting someone else's war stuff is something this soldier truly believed and WANTED the public to now or if it was taken out of context.
 
Back
Top