Media Bias [Merged]

[kawa11]

I dislike fox news as much as the next guy but I don't feel this to be a political statement. I never expect anyone to come up and shake my hand and tell me a job well done for what I do. Just don't try to make more people look down on me and spit on my uniform for something I didn't do. I don't care about an apology or any sort of contradicting article. I will still go to work tomorrow wearing the same uniform and see the same guys I have known for years. I love what I do.

This is unfortunate. I feel horrible that people can't differentiate between the (wo)man and the uniform.
Figured the Vietnam era would have taught people not to s*** on the soldier next door, just returning from Asia, who was conscripted against his will, simply because they didn't agree with the Gov't's policy.

I have nothing but respect for the American Army including the soldiers at Abu Grahib Prison. Specific soldiers crossed the lines (and REALLY crossed numerous lines) but they were punished. I don't think the uniform should be tarnished by association...that's insanity.

I'm not sure if you've read Ezra Levant's columns before, but this is his MO. Everything he writes is labelled "opinion" and as such doesn't require him to source anything. As a result he has been successfully sued several times for libel. Most notably for stating that George Soros collaborated with Nazis as a child which caused Sun Media to issue an apology and a retraction.

Not familiar with the columns but wow..just WOW! [at the highlighted above]

 

[George Wallace]

Levant: Where’s the apology?
Ezra Levant
Sunday, June 26, 2011, 2:00:30 AM
For years, irresponsible left-wing extremists have smeared our Canadian Forces in Afghanistan, accusing our Canadian men and women of .......................................

And the LINK to this quote?  Or is this all your words?

 

[mariomike]

And the LINK to this quote?  Or is this all your words?

http://www.ottawasun.com/2011/06/24/levant-wheres-the-apology

 

[Redeye]

And the LINK to this quote?  Or is this all your words?

Levant is a joke.  He's a right wing blowhard moron who resorts to the most contemptible tactics in "debate".  Disagree with him?  You must be some kind of antisemite?  Call him out for lying (like he did about George Soros until he got sued and told sternly to STFU)?  Antisemitism?  It's ridiculous.

And the single worst smear against Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan, in my opinion, came from another Sun Media hack, Michael Coren, in "Caring for Karine". 

http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/michael_coren/2009/04/18/9153761-sun.html

It includes idiotic statements like "Can we really imagine for a moment that if a group of Taliban tribesmen rushed a trench or an encampment this poor young woman could fight them off, could deal with the thrusts of their long knives and heavy clubs?"

Long knives and heavy clubs?!

What the hell?

The opposition, WRT to detainee handling, did its job.  And yes, it showed that the CF did its job.  That's alright in my books.  There was cause for concern among many in the public and they demanded answers.  And got them.  There's nothing wrong with that in my book.

 

[mariomike]

And the single worst smear against Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan, in my opinion, came from another Sun Media hack, Michael Coren, in "Caring for Karine". 

Topic: Michael Coren: "Caring for Karine" ( 5 pages ):
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/85540.0.html?PHPSESSID=ngqji2m11endkgg8bas5btgus4

 

[Radar114]

The whole paragraph in the ref to the long knives and clubs is a terrible slash at us.  He tears down the training that the soldier received before she went in that she can't do the job and then attempts to drive a wedge, it seems to me, that male troops won't risk their lives to save an under attack, isolated soldier who is a female.

Freedom of speech is all that is.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Levant is a joke.  He's a right wing blowhard moron who resorts to the most contemptible tactics in "debate".  Disagree with him?  You must be some kind of antisemite?  Call him out for lying (like he did about George Soros until he got sued and told sternly to STFU)?  Antisemitism?  It's ridiculous.

And the single worst smear against Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan, in my opinion, came from another Sun Media hack, Michael Coren, in "Caring for Karine". 

http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/michael_coren/2009/04/18/9153761-sun.html

It includes idiotic statements like "Can we really imagine for a moment that if a group of Taliban tribesmen rushed a trench or an encampment this poor young woman could fight them off, could deal with the thrusts of their long knives and heavy clubs?"

Long knives and heavy clubs?!

What the hell?

The opposition, WRT to detainee handling, did its job.  And yes, it showed that the CF did its job.  That's alright in my books.  There was cause for concern among many in the public and they demanded answers.  And got them.  There's nothing wrong with that in my book.

I'll take Levant or Coren any day and trump you with the loony Left's Heather Malik.

As for the Opposition doing their jobs? You'd have to be deaf & blind not to see that this really had absolutely nothing to do with poor Taliban detainees and everything to do with trying to embarass the CPC and embroil them in scandal, at the detriment of the CF.

There were few in the actual public that gave a flying rat's ass what happened to Timmy and all the polls at the time showed that. The only false concern came from pouty whiny left wing politicos, and as stated, not for any sense of decency for the prisoners.

 

[Retired AF Guy]

I'll take Levant or Coren any day and trump you with the loony Left's Heather Malik.

Hear, hear! Levant or Coren, no matter how much they twist their articles, are at least dealing with reality. Malik, on the other hand, is so out to lunch, that I think she actually lives in another alternate dimension.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I'll take Levant or Coren any day and trump you with the loony Left's Heather Malik.
...

They, Levant and Malik, alike, are exercising a freedom that people like you and I, and many, many members here, defended, defend today and will defend in the future. My, personal solution to most of them, including Levant, Coren and Malik, is to ignore them - as i try to ignore most people with very, very low IQs.

But: the more I deplore what they say the greater the legal and, sometimes, physical protection that I demand, from the state, for them. Freedom of expression - even, actually especially the expression that I find most reprehensible - is a precious right in a liberal society like our. It is worth defending; I think Malik and Coren are, being kind, the scum of the earth, but I want them to be able to spout their nonsense from the rooftops and I want us all to defend their right to do it, too.

 

[Redeye]

I'll take Levant or Coren any day and trump you with the loony Left's Heather Malik.

You mean Heather Mallick?  Yeah, I dismiss her about as easily as I do Coren and Levant, opposite polls, same level of idiocy.  They have a right to their opinions, and I have the right to mock and dismiss them.  I'd rather it all happen publicly.

As for the Opposition doing their jobs? You'd have to be deaf & blind not to see that this really had absolutely nothing to do with poor Taliban detainees and everything to do with trying to embarass the CPC and embroil them in scandal, at the detriment of the CF.

There were few in the actual public that gave a flying rat's *** what happened to Timmy and all the polls at the time showed that. The only false concern came from pouty whiny left wing politicos, and as stated, not for any sense of decency for the prisoners.

There were quite a few, enough that made noise enough to get the opposition to demand it.  Again, remember all that talk about "transparent" and "accountable" government?  That's what was exercised.  If we're going to claim some manner of moral high ground in how we deal with "detestable murderers and scum bags", then we have to be ready to prove it.  And the investigation did.  Great.  That doesn't mean it was wrong to do it.  As to "the detriment of the CF", in what way?  We are entrusted with a great deal of authority and responsibility by the public, and apparently were able to demonstrate we deserve it.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

You mean Heather Mallick?  Yeah, I dismiss her about as easily as I do Coren and Levant, opposite polls, same level of idiocy.  They have a right to their opinions, and I have the right to mock and dismiss them.  I'd rather it all happen publicly.

There were quite a few, enough that made noise enough to get the opposition to demand it.  Again, remember all that talk about "transparent" and "accountable" government?  That's what was exercised.  If we're going to claim some manner of moral high ground in how we deal with "detestable murderers and scum bags", then we have to be ready to prove it.  And the investigation did.  Great.  That doesn't mean it was wrong to do it. As to "the detriment of the CF", in what way?  We are entrusted with a great deal of authority and responsibility by the public, and apparently were able to demonstrate we deserve it.

Meaning that, the Opposition would have hung the CF out to dry if they found a wedge to further their agenda of embarassing the CPC. The Opposition does not care about the job the CF does or what moral ground they stand on, only that they are an arm of the sitting government and, therefore, another means of attacking said gov't.

 

[Redeye]

Meaning that, the Opposition would have hung the CF out to dry if they found a wedge to further their agenda of embarassing the CPC. The Opposition does not care about the job the CF does or what moral ground they stand on, only that they are an arm of the sitting government and, therefore, another means of attacking said gov't.

How so?  They would have used it to go after the government that sets the policy - not the CF who executed it.  And franklly, had anything been found, I'd want it to have been addressed fully, publicly.

 

[kawa11]

Meaning that, the Opposition would have hung the CF out to dry if they found a wedge to further their agenda of embarassing the CPC. The Opposition does not care about the job the CF does or what moral ground they stand on, only that they are an arm of the sitting government and, therefore, another means of attacking said gov't.

And your comment furthers proves a point.
By refusing to let the opposition review the documents and do their job it can then be used against them when they do ask for them - which they shouldn't have had to ask for to begin with.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

And your comment furthers proves a point.
By refusing to let the opposition review the documents and do their job it can then be used against them when they do ask for them - which they shouldn't have had to ask for to begin with.

Whatever :

There was valid security reasons for not releasing them willy nilly like the Opposition wanted. Once those concerns were addressed, the Committee received what they asked for.

 

[kstart]

Meaning that, the Opposition would have hung the CF out to dry if they found a wedge to further their agenda of embarassing the CPC. The Opposition does not care about the job the CF does or what moral ground they stand on, only that they are an arm of the sitting government and, therefore, another means of attacking said gov't.

Yes, there's always political games, but this was an important matter and it was the Opposition's job to call the CPC to account.  The Opposition also represents Canadians (some of whom wrote to their MPs demanding this issue be looked at), and the Government of Canada (CPC, and Opoosition Parties) also have obligations to International Law and the treaties we have signed on to.

How so?  They would have used it to go after the government that sets the policy - not the CF who executed it.  And franklly, had anything been found, I'd want it to have been addressed fully, publicly.

I watched some CPAC coverage, I think this is the correct link (I'm going by memory, b/c my computer crashed, and I've lost audio): http://www.cpac.ca/forms/index.asp?dsp=template&act=view3&pagetype=vod&hl=e&clipID=3930 (April 27, 2010 )

But I witnessed Afghan Committee meeting: O'Connor, MacKay, Cannon vs. Ujjal Dosanjh, under the 'moderation' of Peter Miliken.  I heard glorious extollations by the CPC on the honour and dignity of CF, however it seemed clear to me, they were using up time and not answering Mr. Dosanjh's questions re: Civillian government role-- essentially manipulating the time frames to answer questions, and a refusal to answer questions directly.

In a court of law, and if Peter Miliken was acting as a judge, those CPC members would have been thrown out for contempt.  IMO, there was poor moderation by Mr. Miliken (aside from reminding members of time contraints, when answering questions), to request that the others answer directly to the questions.  It looked to me to be like a deliberate and contemptuous waste of time, deliberate evansion of direct questions.  I'm not privy to the "in house" meetings, and I'm okay about the issue of protecting CF safety out in the field.  But the Opposition had rights to those documents and all are subject to higher security clearance, obligations to protect national security and are fully accountable to uphold that duty.

I've also read documents from BC Civil Liberties Association and testimony by CF members-- it's quite a contrast vs. the monkey business of politicians, re: CF members giving straight-forward, reasonable and honest approach.  From those testimonies, I could empathize with the difficulty from the field perspective, re: handling of prisioners, the pragmatic conundrum (IMO they deserved a lot more support, and that IMO does go up to Civillian government here).  My understanding is that civillian command, finally did bring Canadian Corrections workers in, to help with monitoring and mentoring ASD.

I'm angry with what I witnessed re: House of Commons, the treatment of Richard Colvin, the politicking.  Legitimate concerns, legitimate sense of risks (as e.g. Amnesty International had been monitoring human rights abuses, long before CF arrived on the scene).  Huge defensiveness by CPC party (immature treatment, IMO of the issues, and the seriousness of such).  Red Cross as well made reports, but those steadily disregarded as invalid, as the "Taliban instruction manual" instructs to make up stuff-- regardless, investigation of conditions needed to be done, regular monitoring.  I heard, "who, what are the names, prove it. . ." -- they known damn well Red Cross can't do that, it's a safety issue re: prisoner reports.  I felt the conduct by parliamentarians to be very embarrassing, unprofessional (but what else is new).

I have a high level of trust for CF members, as highly professional, many virtues that'd put shame to most of us (civillians).  What I don't like, is if we failed to give them the support needed, to support their professionalism. 

Tying back to CBC, I think it's also important to try to separate oneself from some of the commentors, the peanut gallery, knee-jerk reactions.  Plurality of views I think is important in fostering a healthy democracy, and informed debate from which we can learn from one another.  A freedom, when honoured and with respectful discourse is an amazing gift-- it can bring out the best from one another, we have a chance to expand our views.  I know I've had conflict with others here, not a big deal (I hope not?).  I've also reflected (post-stumbling, which I do a lot of) and I try to do my best to evolve and learn.  My respect for CF on a whole has been further deepened a lot, by the great examples I've witnessed from here.   And that doesn't depend on "agreement" on things or everything.

 

[Edward Campbell]

There were lots of mistakes made: by both Conservative and Liberal politicians; by officials in more than one government department/agency - including Richard Colvin who, in my opinion made more than most others; by military members and by Speaker Milliken who, again in my opinion, improperly Americanized our version of a parliamentary democracy.

Who is to blame? Try Ministers McCallum, Pratt and Graham and Gen (Ret'd) Hillier and a whole host of poorly qualified civil servants, led by Richard Colvin, for a start. Ministers and officials and generals, from 2006 to 2011, pretty much all stonewalled while they tried to: a) do political damage control, and b) fix the problems which certainly did exist. Speaker Milliken made more serious errors in confusing the crown's rights, privileges and duties with the privileges of parliamentarians; I am pretty certain that similar issues will arise again and speakers, in Ottawa and in other parliaments around the world will overturn or amend Milliken's rulings. 

 

[kstart]

There were lots of mistakes made: by both Conservative and Liberal politicians; by officials in more than one government department/agency - including Richard Colvin who, in my opinion made more than most others; by military members and by Speaker Milliken who, again in my opinion, improperly Americanized our version of a parliamentary democracy.

Who is to blame? Try Ministers McCallum, Pratt and Graham and Gen (Ret'd) Hillier and a whole host of poorly qualified civil servants, led by Richard Colvin, for a start. Ministers and officials and generals, from 2006 to 2011, pretty much all stonewalled while they tried to: a) do political damage control, and b) fix the problems which certainly did exist. Speaker Milliken made more serious errors in confusing the crown's rights, privileges and duties with the privileges of parliamentarians; I am pretty certain that similar issues will arise again and speakers, in Ottawa and in other parliaments around the world will overturn or amend Milliken's rulings.

I didn't realize that Colvin was directly involved in the original agreement brokered under Liberal watch-- which to be fair to the CPCs, they did inherit, and it was really flawed along with newer, unanticipated complications re: NATO partners.  I also acknowledge the past tense of problems prior, and that problems were fixed (and under CPC watch).  And I didn't see Liberal members being forthcoming about owning the mistakes re: the original transfer agreement.  I just saw the surface stuff, which your perspective does make some sense of re: the stonewalling; political damage control-- it's just really hard to have respect when witnessing that, and I guess either side, when a political circus is made of a serious issue.  I'm open re-examining decisions, re: Speaker Miliken.  I just want to see a process that flows better, one that is responsive an accountable, minus the circus, would be a good thing.  Problem is our politics has de-volved (and/or it's always been to an extent, higher points and lower points in history) a bit carnivalesque, corrupt in many areas -- regardless of which ruling parties, we could use some cleaning up (e.g. applying some Democracy Watch, resolutions, www.dwatch.org).  I'll remain cautiously optimistic that good changes can come, learning from mistakes.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Colvin was involved in creating a political problem from what was a reasonable simple bureaucratic one. He did so while engaged in a fit of self-aggrandizement.
 

 

[Brad Sallows]

If every possible issue has to be mined for political advantage by opposition parties while the government is a minority, expect defensiveness on every issue from the most trivial to the most seriously grave.  A necessary prerequisite for "serious" government is a group of emotionally and politically mature opposition parties who show a sense of proportion.  Expecting the sitting government to unilaterally disarm is unrealistic.

 

[kstart]

Colvin was involved in creating a political problem from what was a reasonable simple bureaucratic one. He did so while engaged in a fit of self-aggrandizement.

I don't think I'm informed enough to make that judgement. 

Civillian perspective (but also about protecting life and health), but there are situations I've tried to exercise tolerance and patience and try to make do-- which was right to do to try to make the best of it, but still to carry some regret later not taking more direct action.  The are situations I have acted from conscience, which in retrospect were the right decisions, with the bonus effective good accomplished.  There are situations, I've raised the alarm and sided on the side of caution, even though I was pretty sure (intuitively?) it wasn't a problem, and I wasn't sure, so I consulted with a person with more experience than I and decided to act.  Was it foolish, could be seen that way, but I was willing to take that risk anyway rather than risk potential harm.  I can't really be the judge of another person's conscience.  I relate to distrust, and fear, panic, hypervigilance-- I try to keep it in check, by considering over-reaction or also under-reaction.  I know "rocking the boat" is not a convenient choice, there are costs, mostly personal.  Not all those decisions are about a 'hero mythology' or self-aggrandizing (but there is an emotional level, behind the best of reasoning, core values. . .?  principles?  I'm still young).  Difficult too when one finds oneself out of their own element, so it's about consulting with others with more experience, weighing perspectives, consequences, ethics, values.

I'm humble in this way, but I've also encountered histrionics, drama-queens, "personality disordered" and how that affects organizations, etc.  (Plus, I deal with my own craziness )

If every possible issue has to be mined for political advantage by opposition parties while the government is a minority, expect defensiveness on every issue from the most trivial to the most seriously grave.  A necessary prerequisite for "serious" government is a group of emotionally and politically mature opposition parties who show a sense of proportion.  Expecting the sitting government to unilaterally disarm is unrealistic.

Yep, I've witnessed embarrassing moments via my "favoured team". 

CPAC, the scrums-- so much drama, and gleefulness at catching a mistake, not proportionate to the issue (immaturity)-- people stop listening when it's "cry wolf' at the drop of a pin, should chose their battles better. 

I think the standards can be raised, maybe get some better quality (maybe better quality persons avoid politics ).  I didn't give the right Democracy Watch link that I intended, but the Canadian one: http://www.dwatch.ca/camp/camplist.htm  Strengthening the standards, regardless of minority, majority, whichever party.  I just think some of the 'games' are insulting to the intelligence of many Canadians.  Could there ever be a situation in politics where there's admisssion, "yeah, I think we do have a problem, this is the timeline through which we hope to resolve it."  I know the situation was constrained by national security issues and international contexts. . .?  I think we can do better, that's my hope.

Anyway, I didn't mean to hijack the thread.  I'll go on radio silence for now.  I'm open to reading suggestions, PM them.  Tying into CBC, I think all media outlets are capable of feeding the circus   I tend to like public broadcasting, TVO, PBS, BBC, CBC.  I like Peter Mansbridge, respect him.  The Passionate Eye, some interesting documentaries, IMO.  Great radio programs, Ideas series, etc.  I prefer these things to loud mouth radio 'talk shows', or the Reality TV junk of a lot of stations-- mind garbage, IMO (but sometimes I'm drawn to it), vexatious to the soul?   CBC also has some quality documentaries in their archives, recording Canadian history.  I guess I'm sentimental about CBC.