The media takes up our quarrel, on behalf of the foe.

[Edward Campbell]

This, from one of our (very bloody few) favourite journalists Christie Blatchford, was in today’s Globe and Mail and it is reproduced here under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20061030.wxblatchford30/BNStory/National/home

Losing the PR war at home and abroad

CHRISTIE BLATCHFORD
From Monday's Globe and Mail

TORONTO — If the Taliban are clobbering the Canadian Forces in the Afghan public relations war, as some fear, then bloody hell if the same thing isn't happening here at home.

Over the weekend, modestly attended and utterly banal peace marches held in cities across the country led Saturday radio and TV newscasts and print websites (including The Globe and Mail's) and Sunday newspapers, but barely a scintilla of attention was paid to the awarding of prestigious Canadian military decorations and honours.

The awards were announced midafternoon on Friday -- in plenty of time for newspaper deadlines -- but rated only a mention in some major Saturday papers, including The Globe (which ran only a brief, as we call minuscule stories, and then in only some editions) and the National Post. In Toronto, for instance, the only daily to run a proper story on Saturday was the Sun.

In a world where the word "hero" has all but lost its meaning -- attached as it is to almost anyone who endures a mild trauma without mental collapse or meets the now low threshold of nominal good citizenship -- about 40 gallant Canadian soldiers went almost entirely unrecognized by the press, and thus by their countrymen.

It is little short of disgraceful, and I have to say, when I saw my own newspaper on Saturday -- we managed to run four other Canadian Forces-related stories that day, including one which suggested that soldiers are low-achieving losers in flight from dead-end jobs -- I was ashamed.

Virtually all those honoured are members of 1st Battalion Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry or those support and reserve units attached to them; they were the Canadian Battle Group in Kandahar during what the military calls Roto 1, the period from January-February this year through the end of August.

Many of them are soldiers I got to know during my two tours as an embedded reporter in Afghanistan; a couple, including Sergeant Patrick Tower, the big dog among them all, I know well.

Two of the awards -- for Captain Nichola Goddard, a 26-year-old from the 1st Royal Canadian Horse Artillery in Shilo, Man., who was given the Meritorious Service Medal, and 22-year-old Private Kevin Dallaire, who was mentioned in dispatches -- were made posthumously. Capt. Goddard and Pte. Dallaire were both killed in action, respectively, on May 17 and Aug. 3.

Four of the decorations, including Sgt. Tower's, were awarded for the first time since 1993, when Canada created its own military honours, including a Victoria Cross, separate and distinct from the traditional British awards. So the announcement was momentous for two reasons -- first, the remarkable courage of those honoured, and second, because in four cases, the awards were historic.

Sgt. Tower won the Star of Military Valour, in prestige behind only the Victoria Cross, which has never been awarded.

The official citation reads as follows: "Sgt. Tower is recognized for valiant actions taken on Aug. 3, 2006, in the Pashmul region of Afghanistan.

"Following an enemy strike against an outlying friendly position that resulted in numerous casualties, Sgt. Tower assembled the platoon medic and a third soldier and led them across 150 metres of open terrain, under heavy enemy fire, to render assistance. On learning that the acting platoon commander had perished, Sgt. Tower assumed command and led the successful extraction of the force under continuous small arms and rocket-propelled grenade fire. Sgt. Tower's courage and selfless devotion to duty contributed directly to the survival of the remaining platoon members."

Three other soldiers were awarded the Medal of Military Valour.

Sergeant Michael Denine's citation reads as follows: ". . . on May 17, while sustaining concentrated rocket-propelled grenade, machine gun and small arms fire, the main cannon and the machine gun on his light armoured vehicle malfunctioned. Under intense enemy fire, he recognized the immediate need to suppress the enemy fire and exited the air sentry hatch to man the pintle-mounted machine gun.

"Completely exposed to enemy fire, he laid down a high volume of suppressive fire, forcing the enemy to withdraw. Sgt. Denine's valiant action ensured mission success and likely saved the lives of his crew."

Master-Corporal Collin Fitzgerald, with B Company 1PPCLI out of Shilo, won his MMV for "outstanding selfless and valiant actions carried out on May 24, 2006, during an ongoing enemy ambush involving intense, accurate enemy fire.

"MC Fitzgerald repeatedly exposed himself to enemy fire by entering and re-entering a burning platoon vehicle and successfully driving it off the roadway, permitting the remaining vehicles trapped in the enemy zone to break free. MC Fitzgerald's courageous and completely selfless actions were instrumental to his platoon's successful egress and undoubtedly contributed to saving the lives of his fellow platoon members."

Private Jason Lamont, a medic, earned his MMV on July 13, when "an element of the reconnaissance platoon came under heavy enemy fire from a compound located in Helmand Province, and was isolated from the rest of the platoon.

"During the firefight, another soldier was shot while attempting to withdraw back to the firing line and was unable to continue. Without regard for his personal safety, Pte. Lamont, under concentrated enemy fire and with no organized suppression by friendly forces, sprinted through open terrain to administer first aid. Pte. Lamont's actions demonstrated tremendous courage, selflessness and devotion to duty."

On the day that Sgt. Tower performed so nobly, Aug. 3, four young Canadians were killed in combat -- first, Corporal Chris Reid, and shortly afterward, Sergeant Vaughn Ingram, Corporal Bryce Jeffrey Keller and Pte. Dallaire -- a number of others were badly wounded, and still more felled by the devastating summer heat.

The scene, as it's been described for me in detail by participants from many corners of the battle, was nightmarish and horrific. Sgt. Tower was not only courageous, he remained calm enough to take care of his troops in ways great and small, and sufficiently devoted that once having led his men to safety, he was ready to go back out into the thick of the danger. As he told Commanding Officer Ian Hope and Regimental Sergeant-Major Randy Northrup, who themselves were awarded the Meritorious Service Cross, "Good to go, sir."

Oh, and Sgt. Ingram was Sgt. Tower's best friend.

The key to the SMV and MMV is a phrase I love, because it is so soldierly, so understated: The awards are given for an act of valour, self-sacrifice or devotion to duty "in the presence of the enemy."

Well, the boys are back home now, minus their friends and mates killed in action or accident, and not all of the living have their limbs or their eyes, and all are changed. There are many days when they must wonder if somehow, they aren't still in the presence of some enemy even less readily identifiable than the Taliban.

cblatchford@globeandmail.ca

I know we have discussed the valour decoration and the 28 Oct demonstrations elsewhere but I want to focus on something different, and, CAUTION, this is a bit of a rant:

The Canadian media has taken up the quarrel but they have done so on behalf of the foe.

The coverage of the 28 Oct demonstrations was so over the top, so uncritical as to be propaganda rather than reporting:

There were demonstrations in 37 cities – Quick! Name Canada’s 37th largest city.  No?  How about the 27th largest?  The 17th largest?  Let us be charitable and agree that several hundred paraded in Toronto and a few hundred in many (just some?) of the others – maybe 5,000 Canadians, out of 30 million, oppose the Afghan mission enough to complain – significantly less than the  number of soldiers who have served there?  That’s news? 

There were (according to the Ottawa CTV news report) several thousand people at the Kingston Garrison’s Freedom of the City parade on the same day.  It is likely that as many people came out in one small Canadian city to honour the troops as attended all the demonstrations in 37 Canadian cities.  The ‘story’ which should have been reported was: “Canadians ignore Canadian Peace Alliance, Jack Layton, organized labour and Muslim groups’ protests.”

Consider the attention paid to Francisco Juarez.  Army.ca members know that either:

• Juarez misrepresented his actions; or

• The Canadian Peace Alliance misrepresented Mr. Juarez’ actions.

But the media gave repeated and totally uncritical attention to Mr. Juarez’ ‘story.’  A first year university journalism student should know enough to check facts.  The facts about Mr. Juarez were, still are on display.  The media ignored them.  By so doing the media misled Canadians.

The Canadian media – CBC, TORSTAR, Bell Global Media (including the Globe and Mail and CTV), CANWEST (including the Southam papers and Global TV) and Québecor (the Sun chain) – has disgraced itself.  It is no longer reporting the news; it is propagandizing.  Of course there are a few notable exception but, as a general rule, Canadians, especially Canadian soldiers, should regard journalists as Taliban sympathizers, or worse.


Edits: spelling and format

 

[Big Foot]

Where would we be without Christie Blatchford? In a time when the media seems to be against us, she is firmly behind us. Job well done.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Where would we be without Christie Blatchford? In a time when the media seems to be against us, she is firmly behind her. Job well done.

But she cannot, should not fight DND's media battles for them.  The Minister and Prime Minister need to explain and persuade, IF they care about the mission and the soldiers.

I know I'm repeating but: what if this is only about embarrassing the Liberals for partisan political advantage?  What if the government neither knows nor much cares why we need to help make Afghanistan safe for the Afghan people?  What if this is all calculation:

• How little must we do to avoid annoying our American trading partners?

• How much of that can we do without annoying Canadian voters?

DND and the PMO have big, expert PR machines.  Are they doing their jobs well enough?  Are they working hard enough?  Or am I right: is the Canadian media propagandizing for the enemy?

 

[jimb]

Here it is Tuesday, and I  still can't find any media coveraqe of the above mentioned awards,  but the papers here in Toronto were filled over the weekend with stories and pages of photos of the anto war rallies. I also have to ask about the 37 cities that were supposed to have held such parades ? WTF?

It is obvious to me that the mainstream media in Canada are soundly behind the NDP and the leftwing anti -military agenda. Insulting, but not surprising.

Jimb Toronto.

 

[vonGarvin]

+1 to Christie Blatchford and her article, condemning not only other newspapers, but her own.  And +1 to the G and M for publishing it.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Ezra Levant makes similar points in the Calgary Sun:

Pressing for defeat
Taliban insurgents don't need a media relations bureau
http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Columnists/Levant_Ezra/2006/10/30/2175003.html

...Every time a Canadian soldier dies in Afghanistan, it is turned into a moment of national bathos.

The death makes the TV news when it happens, then when the body is put aboard a plane for Canada, then when the plane lands, then again at the funeral. Each of those events is not news -- each is an editorial effort by our press corps to create a public feeling of hopelessness and pointlessness.

The Taliban doesn't have a media relations bureau these days. It doesn't need one, it has the CBC.

It doesn't need a spokesman, it has Jack Layton, making the case for a humiliating evacuation of our troops.

The war against terror will not be won or lost by our brave soldiers. It will be won or lost by our media.

Now that's terrifying.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[a_majoor]

Although it is only a small gesture, we can fan out through the Blogosphere with Christine's article, and potentially reach a few million people that way.

Sad to say, some of our best friends are American bloggers, like "Captain" Ed Morrisey http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/, who published the Gomery hearings in the "clear" for all Canadian's to read. Reach out tho our friends in other countries as well, maybe people will wake up to what is really going on when the Congress starts making more pointed inquiries about the actions and behaviours of Canadians.

 

[Gunnar]

But she cannot, should not fight DND's media battles for them.

No, but she can stand up for the integrity of the journalistic profession, if the others are too lazy to do so.  By defending herself, and her chosen metier, she defends us all...as a side effect to her defending the integrity of reporters everywhere.  It's a side effect I can live with.

 

[MarkOttawa]

a_majoor: Trying to do my bit:

http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2006/10/afstan-enemies-within.html
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/008004.html

Mark
Ottawa

 

[GAP]

The media's position is slammed in the latest Ruxted Article

http://ruxted.ca/

 

[x-grunt]

  Or am I right: is the Canadian media propagandizing for the enemy?

Unfortunately, I believe you are right. What I do not believe is that it is deliberate rather it is the default of their style of reporting. My (completely unresearched) gut belief is this is based loosely on the "if it bleeds it leads" way of reporting news. In this case, if it is "anti-", it gets noticed. Anti-anything is news because is confrontational, and has the potential for stirring up trouble. Good news is no news. Trouble gets read. Getting read (or watched in the case of TV) is everything. The left is "anti-" a lot of the time.

The other thing that gets news, albeit not as often as violence and controversy: Saviours. Saviours heroically stand up to something oppressive and save the day. This should be our sweet spot with the media and the public who still think in terms of peacekeeping. I always thought Medak could have been a huge PR coup for us, the valiant CF soldiers fighting the brutal oppressors "cleansing" the helpless villagers. Canadians understand that. Our new recruiting ads seem to have that slant. Can AFG be "marketed" that way? Attempts to do so seem weak. More emotional appeal is needed.

Agree with von G, +1 to Blatchford and the G&M.

 

[KevinB]

Edward - excellent comments.


I've been revolted a lot recently by the media -- too bad Edward and Ruxted dont have columns in the media, if for not anything more than neutralizing the crap spewed in the air.

 

[Babbling Brooks]

But she cannot, should not fight DND's media battles for them.

I've had some discussions recently with CF Public Affairs about this issue.  The CF needs to treat the PR battle the same way they would any other battle: with doctrine, strategy, tactics.  If the mainstream media (MSM) present the CF with an entrenched opposition, search out their flank and exploit it.  The internet is a great way to do that.

Publishing - in print, audio, or video - isn't the exclusive domain of the press any longer.  It's past time the CF appreciated this reality and started adapting to it.

 

[Reccesoldier]

I've had some discussions recently with CF Public Affairs about this issue.  The CF needs to treat the PR battle the same way they would any other battle: with doctrine, strategy, tactics.  If the mainstream media (MSM) present the CF with an entrenched opposition, search out their flank and exploit it.  The internet is a great way to do that.

Publishing - in print, audio, or video - isn't the exclusive domain of the press any longer.  It's past time the CF appreciated this reality and started adapting to it.

Well said Brooks.

For far too long the CF PR has acted like a firestation, responding only when some emergency arose.  It is indeed time to take this battle to the enemy, to push the CF's position and get the word out.

 

[Journeyman]

I've had some discussions recently with CF Public Affairs about this issue.  The CF needs to treat the PR battle the same way they would any other battle: with doctrine, strategy, tactics.  If the mainstream media (MSM) present the CF with an entrenched opposition, search out their flank and exploit it.  The internet is a great way to do that.

Lovely theory from the talking heads. Can anyone come up with any examples where the PAff Branch has ever actually done any of this figurative outflanking on behalf of the deployed troops?



No, I couldn't think of any either.


Yes, the internet is a great tool - - however, it remains used only by informed individuals and small private groups, willing to invest the time and effort to correct flawed media reports. CF Public Affairs certainly aren't using it.

 

[Babbling Brooks]

Can anyone come up with any examples where the PAff Branch has ever actually done any of this figurative outflanking on behalf of the deployed troops?

Nothing earth-shattering, no.  Doesn't mean they can't start, though.

And people are taking small steps towards correcting problems: go to today's Spotlight on Military News and you'll see MarkOttawa (aka Mark Collins) taking David Akin of CTV out to the woodshed for a piece on aircraft procurement that was...how to put this...not Akin's finest piece of work.  Why is that noteworthy?  Because Mark's piece was on a blog, and someone figured if the truth wasn't going to get out in the MSM, they'd point readers to the blog instead.  Whoever puts those stories together each day did an end run on the press, because the press was getting it wrong.  I'd say there's hope.

 

[probum non poenitet]

is the Canadian media propagandizing for the enemy?

There are many in the media who would kill the Easter Bunny and feed him to Osama on live TV if it would make Stephen Harper look bad. Of that I am convinced.
Hell, they'd probably pre-empt hockey to do it.

Screwing the army and their mission is just small potatoes. Oh yeah, our Afghan allies lose out too. Whatever, they don' t vote ...  :

What the long-term consequences of this short-sighted partisan behaviour will be, only time will tell, but I don't see a lot of positives.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>The CF needs to treat the PR battle the same way they would any other battle: with doctrine, strategy, tactics.

"Information warfare" is a recognized facet of the big picture.  A few years back the perception was that the PAff branch in the CF saw its role as one of providing CYA on behalf of the CoC.  That was then.  Have things changed?  One of the limitations on the branch is that it must deal only in truth, not disinformation, so that credibility is maintained.  That doesn't preclude publicizing favourable truths.

I am reminded of another gem from Bill Mauldin, writing about the time of his discharge from the US Army and a pending media interview (he had become a celebrity due to his cartoons).  Advice from the officer overseeing the matter (and again I paraphrase, this time from Mauldin's book) was "to tell the truth about the Army, but remember that the truth about the Army was that the Army was a nice place to be."

 

[probum non poenitet]

I've had some discussions recently with CF Public Affairs about this issue.  The CF needs to treat the PR battle the same way they would any other battle: with doctrine, strategy, tactics.  If the mainstream media (MSM) present the CF with an entrenched opposition, search out their flank and exploit it.  The internet is a great way to do that.

Publishing - in print, audio, or video - isn't the exclusive domain of the press any longer.  It's past time the CF appreciated this reality and started adapting to it.

Here's the rub:

Because military operations are now largely a political issue (THANKS AGAIN, EVERYONE IN OTTAWA! BIG KISS!) everytime the CF stump pro-actively to support the mission, you venture dangerously close to the waters of politics. Not completely, but close ...

Is that insane? YES!

How did this come to be? Well, there's that lovely old Magna Carta-esque idea that the military would not interfere in the politics of the state, a cornerstone of Western Democracy.

(The cynical among us might say that the heretofore unwritten counterpart to that covenant is that politicians do not try to actively hamper the nation's military once committed to war, and giving comfort to the enemy should generally be frowned upon. Guess times are a changin'.)

We are in new waters here - I think that's why you see a bit o' hesitation on the part of the CF to 'promote' what it is doing aggressively. Because we are trying to do the honourable, traditional, and correct thing ... we are trying to stay above politics ... aren't we quaint?

 

[Kirkhill]

And if information in support of the mission comes from the government it is rapidly dismissed as propaganda and relegated to the middle of an article as rebuttal to the outrageous charge in the headlines.

So the CF can't argue effectively and neither, I believe, can the government.