Responses to "Co-op program called death sentence"

[Love793]

Wookilar-  We haven't had to place a rebuttal.  The Star ran their own rebuttal, using the facts about the course as provided by the Bde Recruiter the very next day.  31 CBG of course put out the talking points regarding the issue, but they where the usual points emphasizing everyones right to express themselves, and stressing the strategic corporal.

Recceguy- We're not asking for censorship, we're asking a little bit of fact checking on all sides.

 

[Marauder]

I disliked the fact that Cpl Olson (da junior) was quoted, only once, in a secondhand sort of fashion. And much more ink was given to the loon-ball lefties than the other side of the story, but to honest that is, too me, the Star's attempt at being balanced. At least the other side (the CF side) was given some lip service. If the journo was actually earning his pay, he would have contacted the unit recruiters in town or the folks at CFRC to determine what a coop semester with the CF ACTUALLY entailed, and could have then put that into the story, but from the outset it looks like buddy just sorta showed up to the meeting, saw the useful idiots foaming at the mouth, and ran with it, rather than, you know researching background and fact-checking, etc. That all happened after the fact when people who knew the real deal wrote in and started correcting stuff. This is where the Star kinda redeemed itself in my eyes, in that they choose to run the rebuttals, and opinion piece, and the *numerous* letters of support for the Forces from quite a few different angles. Unfortunately, that first piece was put out in army.ca's purview in a bit of a vaccuum. It's kinda like seeing Pte Bloggins and Cpl Gustav out at Sassy's getting wasted and with the lampshade on their head, and then the next day watching them do their CQ and RQ jobs with great efficiency and pride. One mis-step can leave a bad taste in the mouth, no matter if that event was completly without context. The Star is full of weirdo commies, though, don't get me wrong. But this time they refrained from continuing to shot themselves in the foot after the inital ND.

I think our collective disgust should be really centred on those WIB freaks and that airhead teeny bopper and all the other highschoolers who open their collective suck hole without having the first clue what they are talking about.

 

[career_radio-checker]

Is anyone able to post those *numurous* letters of support? I tried to read them on the Star's site but they ask for a membership.

 

[sober_ruski]

In my old high school there was a coop term with either Vancouver police or local RCMP (not sure which one). Those lucky enough to get selected got to fire some nice weapons (including MP5s  ) and one girl almost had her arm blown off when a shotgun's barrel exploded. So why is police coop accepted and CF coop isnt? Some POs have to... disable suspects and some end up dead. Cant wait for all those speed and weed induced hippies to die off.

 

[DG-41]

This is where the Star kinda redeemed itself in my eyes, in that they choose to run the rebuttals, and opinion piece, and the *numerous* letters of support for the Forces from quite a few different angles.

This is the Star's usual MO when dealing with a contentious subject: publish a story outlining the questionable behaviour of somebody, and then serve as an outlet for community outrage. They don't editorialize anywhere near as much as say, the Toronto Sun or the National Post do - instead, they prefer to turn over rocks and let the community handle the editorializing when things squirm to light.

The best example I can think of happened a couple of years ago. Walker Road has been turning into a big box retail centre for the past dozen years or so, and the development is starting to encroach on the compound of an evangelical Christian "church". One of the establishments to go in near this compound was a Hooters. The pastor of the "church" took offense to the idea of chicken wings being served so near his parish, and got his parishioners to write in to the liquor board to have Hooter's liquor licence rejected - which is what happened. The Star picked up the story as something like "Local church opposes restaurant liquor licence" and then (if memory serves) gave the pastor some space on the editorial page to put his side of the story out.

Well, the pastor didn't have a very good grip on what actually went on inside a Hooters, so his editorial was full of outright inaccuracies. He apparently thought Hooters was a chain of brothels.... Anyway, community outrage was HUGE - almost all of it in support of Hooters. Even those groups not normally a big fan of the concept behind the restaurant (women's groups, etc) came out in favour, over allowing an obscure religious sect to determine who does or does not get a liquor licence.

This particular pot was kept boiling for MONTHS. There wasn't a day that went by without at least one letter to the editor on the Hooters story.

And who won big on that deal? Hooters. Their liquor licence was held up for about a month, but business boomed. I know I went out a couple of times to.. uhh.. show my support of community standards and the place was always rocking.

It's a different kind of journalism... a kind of "editorial by instigation" but it seems to work for Windsor. We now have a situation where citizens are writing in to defend the co-op program and the military at large en masse, where community awareness of the local units is higher than it has been in a very long while, and the WIB are utterly discredited.

Call me crazy, but I call that a win.

So AGAIN - I think the anti-Star language in the Army.ca editorial is undeserved and completely over the top, and I would like to see it scaled down or retracted.

DG

 

[George Wallace]

RecceDG

Perhaps you may want to do another Recce of the revised Editorial and then come back to us ?

 

[DG-41]

Ah, it has been revised...

(reads)

Well... that's better than it was...

But I don't agree with the statement re "factfinding". I don't think it is the job of the paper to refute the statements made by groups like WIB - and I note that the paper DID give space to people with opposite views in the original article.

I won't claim that the original article was perfect; the gold standard of articles of this nature... but I think the outrage is better directed at the WIB than the Windsor Star.

All else being equal though, the revised version is MUCH better. Thank you.

DG

 

[Edward Campbell]

The Canadian Association of Journalists have a code of ethics which they call Ethics Guidelines.  It can be read here: http://www.caj.ca/principles/principles-statement-2002.htm

It appears to me that the “ We will report all relevant facts in coverage of controversies or disputes." guideline was blissfully ignored by the Windsor Star – by its reporter, its editors and its publishers.  I think the proper designation for the Windsor Star report is yellow journalism.

 

[Centurian1985]

Is this rag the 'Windsor Star' or the 'Red Star'?

Once again, a group of opinionated and 'educated' people deliberately malign a government department for their own purposes...

 

[DG-41]

Oi,

Gentlemen, just because a paper publishes stories that contains information that we don't agree with, don't like, is unfavourable, or generally unpleasant does NOT mean that the paper contains any sort of bias one way or the other.

The paper's job is to report the news, no matter who or where it comes from.

The last paper that I can recall that only published stories favourable to the state was Pravda - is that what you want?

DG

 

[zipperhead_cop]

Gentlemen, just because a paper publishes stories that contains information that we don't agree with, don't like, is unfavourable, or generally unpleasant does NOT mean that the paper contains any sort of bias one way or the other.
The last paper that I can recall that only published stories favourable to the state was Pravda - is that what you want?

Yeah, who needs facts and sources when there is "news" to print.  DG, as for your statement "It seems to work for us in Windsor" it would be more accurate to state "we have no choice, it is the only local paper in Windsor".  The fact that so many people have reacted should suggest that the original article should have had a more balanced tone to it. 

The paper's job is to report the news, no matter who or where it comes from.

That's why we have...

 

[Love793]

RecceDG-  Is 9D aware your Recce, or is that another Michigan Jail issue? ;D

42E

 

[DG-41]

The fact that so many people have reacted should suggest that the original article should have had a more balanced tone to it.

From what I have seen, the lion's share of the outrage has been directed at the originators of the quote, not at the paper itself.

And I stand by the statement that the paper did present a balanced tone to the article. They could have gone to better sources, but the ones they cited are in my opinion, adequate. Perhaps not "ideal", but adequate.

The comparison with the Weekly World News etc is pure hyperbole. The statements made by the WIB spokeswoman and the equally ill-informed 11th grader were fact, not invention. They actually said what was reported.

Sometimes people are going to say things we don't like. If these quotes happened in a public forum in which a reporter is in attendance, it is quite likely that they will hit the paper. This is normal and natural in a society that has a free press. Save the outrage for the people generating the quote, not the paper that reported it.

Nixon said "I am not a crook". Clinton said "I did not have sex with that woman." Both statements were manifestly false - should they have not been reported?

DG

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

No, but I bet they were investigated at least.....otherwise Nixon wasn't a crook and Clinton didn't have sex.

 

[zipperhead_cop]

Sometimes people are going to say things we don't like.

Lieutenant Ironic.

 

[DG-41]

I can see the mess is going to get more exciting.

DG

 

[zipperhead_cop]

You are assuming I will talk to you in the mess?

;D ;D

 

[GGboy]

I think you guys are missing RecceDG's point here, which given the importance of "info ops" these days is a vital one.
By going after a reporter who's just doing his/her job (albeit not exceedingly well) with both guns blazing, you're just putting yourself in the category of nut-bar, zealot, or even kill-bot. When this sort of thing happens, the best thing to do is point out what the reporter missed, make your case logically and reasonably and suggest he/she do another story with the CF's point of view included. Ranting about them being commies or peaceniks just puts you in the same filing cabinet as the WIB fruitcakes and pisses off the reporter. And as Sam Clements noted, you shouldn't pick fights with people who buy ink by the barrel.
Not only will the immediate outcome be more positive for the CF, with a little luck you'll end up with a reporter who's better educated about the military and (most importantly) has a phone number for the local PAffO so the next time the WIB or their ilk do something like this he/she can call them for comment BEFORE running the story.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Ranting about them being commies or peaceniks

Huh? Must have missed that line in the editorial....

 

[Centurian1985]

Being highly aware of how news stories get from the reporter to the newstand, I can tell you that this isnt a case of a reporter putting out their personal angle.  Only top-rank reporters get to call their own shots.  These stories are tasked by editors who want specific angles that are in accordance with the political leanings of the OWNER of the paper.