'The Canadians try to kill everybody'

[spqr]

I think the reaction to Greame was a little harsh. The guy is writing what they said, I would rather he didn't edit it and come to his own analysis for me.  I can see that his description of the characters and the plain presentation of facts was easy enough to read through.  I am sure most readers can see a yarn when it is spun by our enemies.  The presentation was the only problem.  The globe made it a bigger deal that it was.

Good job to Christie for the glaring counterpoint.

Rob

 

[The Bread Guy]

Too true!

I suspect that most Canadian journalists, people like Graeme Smith, are simply too ignorant – that’s the right word - to understand:
• What they see and hear in the region; and
• The nature of information warfare and their, unwitting, role in it.

Almost certainly through ignorance, Graeme Smith and his editors allowed themselves to be played by the Taliban.  They became part of the story.  They forsook journalism and became Taliban agents in Canada.  It is the logical outcome of ignorance and idleness – the two main defining characteristics of Canadian journalists.

I have to disagree a tiny bit with this, only because of someone saying that they heard on the radio the same reporter saying the messaging was "was probably aimed at Canadian public opinion, and should not be taken as the truth."  If he knew that the morning after the piece was published, I guess he also knew when he was writing it.  Why didn't he mention it in the piece?  Or did he mention it, and someone higher cut it out?

As for "reporting" vs "analysis", a reporter is expected to provide context (which, in part, he did provide in describing the so-called Taliban warriors, suggesting they were a bit softer than many front-liners might be) as well as information, and one sentence mentioning their general messaging approach would not be out of line. 

I wonder if he even asked questions like, "Who do you want to hear this, and why?" or "Who are you trying to convince - Canadians, Afghans or both?"

 

[geo]

+1 for Christie

 

[GO!!!]

I'd say it's a pretty toungue-in-cheek article.

Smith does a pretty good job of discrediting the sources with descriptions of them (foot soldiers in this country can't even keep their hands soft and manicures current :) so it's a dubious claim that these guys are low level anything.

Plus, now the press's negligence in reporting the numbers of enemy that Canadian troops have killed is backfiring - they did'nt report the CF killing very many enemy at all - so which is it? Who is discredited? The enemy, with a vested interest in harming our reputation? or the press for failing (again) to accurately report the facts?

All in all, a satisfyingly confusing article - that our press, filled with passport holding Canadians can have tea with some of the most despicable people on earth who also happen to be our mortal enemy, then retreat to the safety and plenty of a CF base to report their findings. Who is doing the war effort more harm?

 

[1feral1]

In many ways the media are the real enemy in this war....

My opinion anyways.

I have met a few media types in my day, and I tow the party line with/on them, never deviating a mm! Give them a mm of opinion outside the line, and they'll twist it into a 1000km stretch of out of context counter-productive babble.

That will find you in the shyte.

I dislike them all.

Wes

 

[dglad]

Not so much an enemy, as an unpredictable, ill-informed and capricious neutral.  Probably more DANGEROUS, actually, as you can usually reasonably predict that your enemy is going to work against your interests.  The press tends to be all over the map, driven by market forces and individual agendae.

I'd really like to see some analytical thought in these articles; that's what was missing from the original piece.  I suspect that these "soft-spoken, well-manicured" fellows were something more than Taliban "foot-soldiers" if, for no other reason, it's tough to believe the Taliban leadership would allow a Canadian reporter to NOT be co-opted into a weapon of the info-war.  Ergo, one tends not to give such a reporter access to illiterate peasants who might actually say things that are at best useless, and at worst actually damaging to the cause.  Rather, the reporter is allowed to meet with brave "dogfaces" who whose only real experience in battle is moving white Rook to Queen-two while sipping an espresso and discussing the next propaganda shot into the West.  These two "grunts" must be giggling with delight as they read sites like this one (probably from an internet cafe in Kuala Lumpur, Bangkok or Paris, while on a break from putting their poor, battle-worn faces onto Taliban fund-raising efforts) over the effect their single, precision-guided quote has had in Canada.

If reporters aren't going to put a little more analytical effort and context-building into their articles, then the papers may just as well save some money, let the correspondents go and send a stenographer to get the Taliban to dictate a transcript and print it verbatim.  Or Purolator a tape-recorder.  Or, hell, just reprint Taliban press releases, or cut and paste from their web-sites.  It would be quicker, easier and much cheaper.  And then, at least, having the benefit of no context or analysis whatsoever, readers in Canada can freely assign whatever weight they want to the resulting contents.

Call it "un-reporting".  Pure news, absolutely unbiased, unblemished by human hand.

 

[BernDawg]

Once again, Christie ROCKS!

 

[Kilo_302]

We have to remember that this reporter has no control over where or how the Globe prints his story. He probably didn't envision it on the front page. And to the people who were posting rubbish like "how can a Canadian reporter be talking to the enemy" etc. That's what we call  having a free press. I thought that was among the ideals we were fighting for in Afghanistan in the first place. Reporters often get it wrong, but that doesn't mean they don't have a right to interview anyone they please. The more Canadians see the Taliban as a faceless enemy, the more leeway the Canadian government has in pursuing any policy it wants in Afghanistan (which could be a good thing, but it also could be a bad thing). Seeing the enemy as a homogenous, "evil" force is a big mistake, because once that sets in, ineffective tactics will follow. To address possible responses: Yes the Taliban has done terrible and evil things. Does that make every tribesman who has taken up arms, possibly against Canadians, evil? No. An informed Canadian public is essential in ensuring our government doesn't make bad policy. On the otherhand, a lot of Canadian journalists HAVE played up the whole "combat" thing, knowing Canadians are woefully ignorant of military affairs. But blanket statements tinged with facism towards the press doesn't help the situation either.  "The media is the enemy"?! Come on.   I think the Pentagon has shown us with embedding that the media can be a very valuable tool! And I use the word "tool" here with some irony. ;D The Canadian media loves depicting the military, and those who support it as press-hating, book burning anti-intellectuals. So please, let calmer heads prevail.

 

[boondocksaint]

'Ergo', great word

Put the story into the context that the Canadians area particularly good at killing Taliban, and rest easy at night. I think their ( the interviewed timmies ) view is a bit skewed towards Canadians after several of the recent battles. Every nation has their own capabilities in a fight, or style or trademark, what-have-you. Whatever it is Canadians bring to the fight, it puts 'shock and awe' to shame, it is a perfect storm, it has been an evolution in combat 50 years in the making and it has suprised everyone, timmie included.

Timmie is just trying to make his ego feel a bit better by slagging Canadians. Trash talk as it were.  A sign of desperation that smells of weakness.

 

[HItorMiss]

+1 Boondock


I watched American's awed at the firepower we brought to bear ACCURATELY on a single point on earth. We do what we do best and do it ruthlessly, but only and I repeat only on known targets. We bring the gates of hell to Timmie and I think they might be getting gun shy at that.

 

[probum non poenitet]

And to the people who were posting rubbish like "how can a Canadian reporter be talking to the enemy" etc. That's what we call  having a free press.

We will leave Afghanistan when we have achieved our aims, or if Western political will breaks. The most effective means to manipulate Western political will is through the press. The enemy knows this.
I ask sincerely, do you agree?

The press has limits on it. Would publishing my VISA number be the right of a free press? Would publishing the names of minors be allowed in a criminal case? Would publishing information on the best way to ambush police be allowed in the names of a 'free press'?
Clearly no, as they would likely lead to harm.

A free press is a good thing, but clearly there are limits to how far it can go - especially in wartime.

It's like the old joke about the man who asks the lady at the bar, "Would you sleep with me for a billion dollars?"
She say, "Ummm, yeah, for a billion, I guess so."
He replies, "Well, we've established what you are. Now it's a case of negotiating the price."

We realize there must be some limits on what the press (or any institution) can do, even in a 'free society.' The question is negotiating the limits.

I thought that was among the ideals we were fighting for in Afghanistan in the first place.

We are fighting in Afghanistan to keep Canada safe from those who mean this nation harm. Full f**ing stop. Anything else is a bonus.

Afghanistan is not an intellectual exercise. If we lose, it will suck. It will suck a lot, and for years to come. It will affect people here at home, even from the safety of Starbucks or the Press Club.

Canadians are way too comfortable with the assumptions that either:
a) We will win without breaking sweat; or
b) If we lose, it will be sad, but not as sad as if the cancel Grey's Anatomy.

Seeing the enemy as a homogenous, "evil" force is a big mistake, because once that sets in, ineffective tactics will follow.

Sure. Yes. And portraying 'those wacky insurgents' as sympathetic, morally equivalent, indigenous, peace-loving, victims of neo-colonialism is so far off the mark it would be amusing if the consequences of such thinking were not so grave.
I am not referring to this article solely, but I think you get my drift. I'm repeating myself now.

I'm not against a free press, but it stops short of propagandizing for the enemy. I am not saying that this article is necessarily over the line, but I am saying there damn sure is a line and it should not be crossed.

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

And to the people who were posting rubbish like "how can a Canadian reporter be talking to the enemy" etc. That's what we call  having a free press.

Just a slight interjection.  What would the reaction have been had the G&M interviewed, say, Himmler, during WW II, offering him the opportunity to provide his "perspective" on Jews, the Russians and other topical subjects...

Of course, there's no comparison, is there?  :

 

[zipperhead_cop]

I think this is just an example of yet another journalist being self serving.  He knew bloody well that throwing out "Canadians kill everyone" would be a huge red flag in front of the bull, and now everyone is talking about Graeme.  To suggest that his story was going to be anything but front page is doubtful.  It is a rather big deal to get an interview with these clods, albeit that there is no chance they were "foot soldiers". 
Graeme also knows quite well that if he doesn't print some pro-Taliban stuff he will never get another interview with them.  So Timmie reads the article, sees the subsequent editorial flurry, waits for Ojacka to make some arsehole comments and chalks Graeme in the green column.  For his part, Graeme is able to say to his bosses "hey, they agreed to see me again".  Boss looks at paper revenues from Graeme's last roadtrip and says "yeah, go for it.  Bring me back a nice pashmina scarf" and off Graeme goes, thus promoting his portfolio as a "bona fide war correspondant".  Ultimately, Graeme gets the nod from CBC, and gets some face time as a big time TV news correspondant (oooo, dare to dream--CNN? :-*), and then publishes a book about his harrowing adventures. 
In the face of such potential success, why would he give a rats arse about what happens to the soldiers?

 

[Edward Campbell]

It is important to remember that the journalists, the guys like Graeme Smith with the names on the bylines, do not write the headlines.

Headline writing is a specialized task - it is part of the 'sales' campaign.  The role of the headline is to attract your eye and pique your interest: it gets you to drop a buck in the box to buy the paper or click on a particular story and then, maybe, pay to read it.

In this case, much as I fault Smith and his editors for making him and the Grope and Flail part of the story rather than just telling us the facts (strange guys with soft hands and painted nails claim to be Taliban combat troops and use suspiciously easy to obtain interview and slag Canadians for killing too many Taliban), I do not blame him for the headline.

 

[m410]

Also that headline didn't appear in the print version, just the online one.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

I read it as a shrewd propaganda piece on the part of the Taliban, and had similar thoughts as Teddy about how that would have played out in WWII.  Are the press neutral in a war?

Still, I saw it as valuable in the sense of  "Know thine enemy."  As long as you remember that you are reading words that have an intended IO effect by the enemy you can gain some measure of insight into his mind.  As BDS and HoM astutely noted, our being noticed by the enemy implies that we are indeed having an effect on them. 

 

[probum non poenitet]

What would the reaction have been had the G&M interviewed, say, Himmler, during WW II ...

Well, if you objected to the interview today, you might be called a fascist ... oh, the delicious irony ...

 

[Kilo_302]

A free press is important, and this guy's story was used to editorialize on the front page. It's a very bad call on the part of the G & M. No one here is thinks that the Taliban should portrayed in a positive light, they should be portrayed in a neutral light. All of their atrocities should be listed, as well as their...well they haven't really done anything positive  ;D I agree that there IS a line that journalists can cross, and this simply isn't it. You can object to this interview all you like, but when someone says "the media is the real enemy" they are merely exhibitng the knee jerk reaction that the media loves to pounce on. As for this being a wartime situation, it IS wartime for the troops on the ground. However, the very survival of Canada is not dependent on securing Afghanistan. (I am SO going to get flamed for that :) There are a lot of other pressing issues that deserve our attention. This is not to say I am against the Afghanistan mission, I am just being realistic. I don't think we should be muzzling the press because we have 2300 soldiers in harm's way. If its a matter of OPSEC, then definitely. But disallowing reporters to interview the Taliban is going too far.  I hate to say it Probum , but you are right when you point out that many Canadians seem to more concerned with mundane domestic issues while our soldiers are in harm's way thousands of km away, and thats just the way it is. The average Canadian is not sold on this war unfortunately, and to expect them to accept censorship in the name of it is expecting too much.

Just a slight interjection.  What would the reaction have been had the G&M interviewed, say, Himmler, during WW II, offering him the opportunity to provide his "perspective" on Jews, the Russians and other topical subjects...

Of course, there's no comparison, is there? 

  ??? Wait a second, now that you mention it Teddy, I guess killing people for flying kites really IS bad when seen through the prism of Nazism. I didn't realize that before. ;D  It's always amusing when someone brings up the old "nazi argument". Why not use the old "British Empire argument" didn't they put Boers in concentration camps? Or how about the Turkish argument, didn't they kill a lot of Armenians? Or better yet, those damn Romans used to kill Christians all the time! As for the Nazi comparison. No. There isn't a comparison at all, other than the fact that both groups ideologically off the charts. And I wouldn't have problem with G & M interviewing Nazi officials either.I would hazard a guess that just because they are printed in a Canadian newspaper, Himmler and his views on Jews and Russians etc would not be taken to heart by Canadians. Unless you believe everything you read.

 

[dglad]

We have to remember that this reporter has no control over where or how the Globe prints his story. He probably didn't envision it on the front page. And to the people who were posting rubbish like "how can a Canadian reporter be talking to the enemy" etc. That's what we call  having a free press. I thought that was among the ideals we were fighting for in Afghanistan in the first place. Reporters often get it wrong, but that doesn't mean they don't have a right to interview anyone they please. The more Canadians see the Taliban as a faceless enemy, the more leeway the Canadian government has in pursuing any policy it wants in Afghanistan (which could be a good thing, but it also could be a bad thing). Seeing the enemy as a homogenous, "evil" force is a big mistake, because once that sets in, ineffective tactics will follow. To address possible responses: Yes the Taliban has done terrible and evil things. Does that make every tribesman who has taken up arms, possibly against Canadians, evil? No. An informed Canadian public is essential in ensuring our government doesn't make bad policy. On the otherhand, a lot of Canadian journalists HAVE played up the whole "combat" thing, knowing Canadians are woefully ignorant of military affairs. But blanket statements tinged with facism towards the press doesn't help the situation either.  "The media is the enemy"?! Come on.   I think the Pentagon has shown us with embedding that the media can be a very valuable tool! And I use the word "tool" here with some irony. ;D The Canadian media loves depicting the military, and those who support it as press-hating, book burning anti-intellectuals. So please, let calmer heads prevail.

First, this reporter wrote the story.  If it was changed substantially by his editors afterwards, then he could have pulled his name from the by-line.  He didn't, so it's his story, and he shares full accountability for it with his paper.

Now, as for someone saying "how can a reporter be talking to the enemy"...well, that's an opinion.  Stating it is hardly attempting to limit free press, as you suggest--I don't believe that anyone was attempting to articulate it as  some form of government policy, so there is no threat to our "ideals".  You can rest easy on that score.

The article was irresponsible, because it was incomplete and, as a result, biased.  Whether that bias was intentional, or simply the result of sloppy journalism is irrelevant.  Saying so isn't "facism" (a REALLY tired word, by the way); it's an objective criticism of this particular article.  The G&M often achieves balanced, objective reporting.  When they drop the ball, they need to be called on it.  There's really nothing more to it than that.

Indeed, allow calmer heads to prevail.

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

Kilo_302:

You've completely missed my point.  I'm not comparing ideologies or comparative evils, I'm comparing the media's interview with one enemy of Canada with a theoretical interview of another.  Your diatribe is completely off the mark.

Morally, I find it abhorant that the media, in a misguided attempt to be "balanced", gives a platform to Canada's enemies - of whatever stripe.  We are engaged in a war in which the media plays a central, pivotal role.  The Taliban are keenly aware of the part that public opinion plays in our ability to prosecute operations against them and this article - and the misleading Internet headline - are a perfect example of their ability to use the media to their own ends.  If Canadian soldiers are engaged in a war, the nation is, or should be, engaged in a war and the media should both recognize that fact and govern themselves accordingly.

By the way, if you honestly believe that the worst the Taliban represents is that they "killed people for flying kites", you need to do additional research yourself.

Edit:  typo.