previous post next post  

MSM, Canadian Style.

By The Armorer on June 23, 2006 | | Comments (2)

CAPT H sent me this link.

From the Globe and Mail.

I don't know my Canadian papers, the Globe and Mail might be the Washington Times of Canada. Or the New York Times of Canada. Or something inbetween.

But wouldn't it be nice if a Big Media type in the US would produce something like this, not just the Yons, Roggios, and Norths. Of course, woudn't it be nice if Yon or Roggio could *be* big media types, as a matter of course, vice growing into what they've become by their own sweat, blood, and treasure.

Canada has a potential Ernie Pyle reporting on the war. Graeme Smith. As close as we're likely to see in this day and age, anyway.

Share This Article:

Share |

Categories:

2 Comments

By Damian on June 23, 2006 10:51 AM
The Globe & Mail is probably closest to the Washington Post in style and editorial slant. Big business friendly, socially liberal with a few token and mellow conservatives on the commentary pages to forestall accusations of bias. The paper was was founded in 1844, and lays claim to being Canada's 'national newspaper' - although it has always been Toronto-centric, and it doesn't even have the best circulation in Toronto (the Toronto Star is our equivalent to the NY Times in that regard - editorially as well). The Globe & Mail takes itself very seriously - only went to colour photos in the last ten years or so. It's owned by Bell Globemedia, which also owns CTV - one of three national Canadian TV networks (CBC and Global being the other two). Media concentration is a big issue here in the Great White North. Recently, a number of executives from the company were shown to have high-level ties to the formerly-ruling Liberal Party of Canada - fundraising, advertising chair, etc. As far as military reporting is concerned, as with most journalists, the vast majority of the people writing for the G&M don't know their back end from the 18th green. A few have spent time in the field with soldiers (Christie Blatchford most recently), and have some sense of the day-to-day grind of soldiering in Afghanistan. What they don't have is a broader understanding of military matters. They use a journalist's mind to report on a grunt-level view when they're embedded, without any more strategic insight to inform that view. Blatchford, for example, gave great snapshots of life with the troops in Afghanistan, but was never able to connect the dots as to what the CF was trying to accomplish, how they were going about it, and what success they were having. To her credit, she seemed to know this was beyond her - as do most reporters once they've spent time in the field with soldiers it seems - and didn't make a half-assed attempt to reach. There are really only two reporters in Canada that I think know enough about the military to give depth to their pieces and string together a coherent narrative that does more than scratch the surface: Chris Wattie of the National Post, and Stephen Thorne of the Canadian Press. David Akin of CTV seems fair-minded and interested, but hasn't the breadth of knowledge about military matters yet to compete with the other two. That's it in Canada. Others flit around the edges of military reporting, but they all either have an obvious agenda, or they have no understanding of the unique culture and issues of the organization they're covering. It's pretty thin gruel. Geez, now that I've bored you to tears... Oh well, you asked.
 
By kat-missouri on June 23, 2006 1:33 PM
Actually, what I found interesting was the comment he made about Canadians against the Afghan deployment saying the war didn't match their "values". Well, I would be really interested in what war would meet their "values"? Any? I often do think that if it was the same people today who were running WWII, it still wouldn't be their kind of war. Mainly because people want some clear cut evidence that their is danger from this quarter or the other directly to them and recalling that England declared war before their land had actually been attacked forcing her commonwealth members to join her on the auspices that Poland was attacked and the Brits had an agreement with them making them allies. Now, maybe the Canadians are confused about the multiple agreements they made with us on mutual protection, but it does seem to me that people are far more willing to parse out what that means and argue their agreement as if they were lawyers in a court discussing a business contract instead of adhering to agreements for mutual protection. I do wonder, if NK sent a missile into Canada, would we be able to argue that it was one missile and therefore did not require our response or assistance since Canada probably started by their failed foreign policies, aggressive behavior in the berring straits and insistence on claiming international waters in the arctic. [sarcasm off] Anyway, what are these values the Canadians hold dear? because apparently, most of them do not understand their contractual obligations (at least three of them which call them to participate) and are willing to break it as if it had little impact accept a monetary penalty. On top of that, why after arresting 17 were arrested do they imagine that it would be over even if they left there?