Topic: Allegations of JTF2 wrongdoing in Afghanistan.

[jollyjacktar]

Well, there have been several suggestions that there are things the media should and should not report on (referring to special operations, etc). That is restrictive, no matter how you look at it. It may not be wrong, but it is restrictive.

You know, there once was a time when the press was self censoring and would not report on such things as it was not in the public interest to bring them to light.  A case in point although not military related, IIRC the Whitehouse Press Corps was well aware of what was believed to havehappened behind closed doors during the Kennedy years WRT Marylin Monroe etc.  They chose not to bring it to light as it was not in the public interest to do so. 

I'm afraid I am in the camp of "there are some things the public does not need to know, period."  We are professional enough, self regulating enough that when and if incidents do happen they are investigated and appropriate action taken.  If that is being restrictive, so be it.  I am unapologetic in my feelings in this regard.

[E.R. Campbell]

You know, there once was a time when the press was self censoring and would not report on such things as it was not in the public interest to bring them to light.  A case in point although not military related, IIRC the Whitehouse Press Corps was well aware of what was believed to havehappened behind closed doors during the Kennedy years WRT Marylin Monroe etc.  They chose not to bring it to light as it was not in the public interest to do so. 

I'm afraid I am in the camp of "there are some things the public does not need to know, period."  We are professional enough, self regulating enough that when and if incidents do happen they are investigated and appropriate action taken.  If that is being restrictive, so be it.  I am unapologetic in my feelings in this regard.

The problem, for me, is not that the public does not "need to know" - in fact, in my opinion a well informed public makes better political choices - the problem is that there are legitimate secrets that the public, which includes the media and bloggers, have no lawful right to know.

I repeat that we you, those of you in official capacities, have a duty to properly classify information - something is not a secret just because a twenty-something political staffer in a minister's office doesn't want the public to know about it. There is was a handy-dandy little guide to security rules that young staff officers could use to properly (paragraph by paragraph) assign security classification to the information that was, eventually, going to make its way through the HQ and the CF. I hope such a thing still exists and I hope that at least a few people use it to assign a SECRET classification to all information that is, indeed, secret, but, simultaneously, to avoid classifying information that is, inherently, UNCLAS and, therefore available to the press and public.

In addition to our communications people (Public Affairs) I have always believed that we need a Public Information staff that, actively, pushes unclassified (and unvarnished) facts out to Canadians.

[CDN Aviator]

Well, there have been several suggestions that there are things the media should and should not report on (referring to special operations, etc). That is restrictive, no matter how you look at it. It may not be wrong, but it is restrictive.

I suggest that you have never had your operational security blown by the media and your safety put a serious risk. There are things that are not public and should stay that way. Making them public endangers success and risks people's lives. Restricting the media in such cases is not a communist state.

[milnews.ca]

In addition to our communications people (Public Affairs) I have always believed that we need a Public Information staff that, actively, pushes unclassified (and unvarnished) facts out to Canadians.

Generally, in government (and I stand to be corrected by any CF PA folks), the comms people (the bureaucratic comms folks, anyway) generally are working on public education/information/outreach you're talking about, not just media relations.  You'd like to see more of that from the CF?  There already seems to be a lot getting out there (at least via internet):
http://www.afghanistan.gc.ca/canada-afghanistan/media.aspx
http://www.cefcom-comfec.forces.gc.ca/pa-ap/fs-ev/index-eng.asp
http://www.navy.forces.gc.ca/cms/3/3_eng.asp
http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/land-terre/news-nouvelles/stories-reportages-eng.asp
http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/v2/nr-sp/index-eng.asp?cat=114
Or do you see, say, civvies doing it more?  Love to hear more about the concept of getting more information (rather than "messages") out to the public.

[E.R. Campbell]

Generally, in government (and I stand to be corrected by any CF PA folks), the comms people (the bureaucratic comms folks, anyway) generally are working on public education/information/outreach you're talking about, not just media relations.  You'd like to see more of that from the CF?  There already seems to be a lot getting out there (at least via internet):
http://www.afghanistan.gc.ca/canada-afghanistan/media.aspx
http://www.cefcom-comfec.forces.gc.ca/pa-ap/fs-ev/index-eng.asp
http://www.navy.forces.gc.ca/cms/3/3_eng.asp
http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/land-terre/news-nouvelles/stories-reportages-eng.asp
http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/v2/nr-sp/index-eng.asp?cat=114
Or do you see, say, civvies doing it more?  Love to hear more about the concept of getting more information (rather than "messages") out to the public.

I guess I'm reacting to what I perceive to be attempts to manipulate rather than inform by the defence industry, the defence department, including the CF, and the government - and their counterparts in allied countries and, indeed, In China, too.

I have always thought that sensible people, which includes the media, can understand 'raw' information. I do not dispute the 'need' to massage the data to put an industry or defence/CF or government 'spin' on it - that's part of the political process and it works because there are enough stenographers out there, working in the mainstream media and the blogosphere, who will regurgitate industry/DND/government press releases. But, there are also journalists, I believe who, given some facts, will analyze and report real 'news' for Canadians (and Americans and Brits and, and, and ...).

[cudmore]

E.R.   This is interesting.  I can't entirely agree with  your first point,  but i do agree entirely with your point about the 20 year-old staffer.
I think something to keep in mind is that in a democratic society, all government information is presumptively open. Citizens have a right to know what is being done on their behalf and in their name.
The laws that we have that restrict the release of some information require there be a specific reason or need for that information to be kept from public view.
Undoubtedly there are secrets that need to be kept.   The question is, which ones?  And how do we know?
Increasingly, there's a trend in government to presumptively treat information as secret.
Anyone with a passing familiarity with the Access to Information Act will know what I'm talking about.   
You ask for information X, and (after the passage of months) you get it.   When it eventually arrives, the information is presented in the clear, with no redactions (this is unusual, but it happens).  But what's interesting is how many of those documents arrive with "secret" emblazoned across the top.
What likely happened is this:  Someone inside government decided the info was secret and classified it. I asked for it.  The documents were pulled and were tested under Access to Information Act exemptions and determined NOT to be secret at all.   So, they're sent out free and clear.
The problem, it seems to me, is the frequent over-classification of information, that when tested fails to meet legitimate classification standards.
This leads to questions:  Why was the information over-classified to begin with?   Was it over-zealousness?  A misunderstanding of the rules? Were there legitimate reasons at first that evaporated over time?  Or, was it to protect embarrassing info?

The problem, for me, is not that the public does not "need to know" - in fact, in my opinion a well informed public makes better political choices - the problem is that there are legitimate secrets that the public, which includes the media and bloggers, have no lawful right to know.


I repeat that we you, those of you in official capacities, have a duty to properly classify information - something is not a secret just because a twenty-something political staffer in a minister's office doesn't want the public to know about it. There is was a handy-dandy little guide to security rules that young staff officers could use to properly (paragraph by paragraph) assign security classification to the information that was, eventually, going to make its way through the HQ and the CF. I hope such a thing still exists and I hope that at least a few people use it to assign a SECRET classification to all information that is, indeed, secret, but, simultaneously, to avoid classifying information that is, inherently, UNCLAS and, therefore available to the press and public.

In addition to our communications people (Public Affairs) I have always believed that we need a Public Information staff that, actively, pushes unclassified (and unvarnished) facts out to Canadians.

[E.R. Campbell]

E.R.   This is interesting.  I can't entirely agree with  your first point,  but i do agree entirely with your point about the 20 year-old staffer.
I think something to keep in mind is that in a democratic society, all government information is presumptively open. Citizens have a right to know what is being done on their behalf and in their name.
The laws that we have that restrict the release of some information require there be a specific reason or need for that information to be kept from public view.
Undoubtedly there are secrets that need to be kept.   The question is, which ones?  And how do we know?
Increasingly, there's a trend in government to presumptively treat information as secret.
Anyone with a passing familiarity with the Access to Information Act will know what I'm talking about.   
You ask for information X, and (after the passage of months) you get it.   When it eventually arrives, the information is presented in the clear, with no redactions (this is unusual, but it happens).  But what's interesting is how many of those documents arrive with "secret" emblazoned across the top.
What likely happened is this:  Someone inside government decided the info was secret and classified it. I asked for it.  The documents were pulled and were tested under Access to Information Act exemptions and determined NOT to be secret at all.   So, they're sent out free and clear.
The problem, it seems to me, is the frequent over-classification of information, that when tested fails to meet legitimate classification standards.
This leads to questions:  Why was the information over-classified to begin with?   Was it over-zealousness?  A misunderstanding of the rules? Were there legitimate reasons at first that evaporated over time?  Or, was it to protect embarrassing info?

Properly classifying information requires considerable thought and effort. Despite my personal concerns about the size of our HQs I acknowledge that the volume of information that needs to be managed has grown by an order of magnitude or more since I retired and I am amazed that anyone ever gets the classifications right. The default position, to be safe and secure, is to over-classify.

How would you think we might manage a classification review process? Most important: who pays?

[Oldgateboatdriver]

II have always thought that sensible people, which includes the media, can understand 'raw' information. I do not dispute the 'need' to massage the data to put an industry or defence/CF or government 'spin' on it - that's part of the political process and it works because there are enough stenographers out there, working in the mainstream media and the blogosphere, who will regurgitate industry/DND/government press releases. But, there are also journalists, I believe who, given some facts, will analyze and report real 'news' for Canadians (and Americans and Brits and, and, and ...).

Maybe ten years ago I would have agreed with this view of journalism, but I am affraid I can't anymore.

Today, IMO, even the newspapers (last bastion of real reporting) have been pushed by the 24/7 electronic medias into the "first out with the facts - any facts -checked or not - then spin it to look like you exclusively broke out the biggest "disaster/fraud/shennanigan" of the century - and finish instead of an analysis with how peopole "feel" about the news, preferably in a sensational uninformed way". The few serious newpapers and magazines left that actually take the time and make the efforts required to  digest things, put them into proper focus and produce substantiated reports are unfortunately read only by a minority of already well informed and educated Canadians (like you E.R.C.). 

[George Wallace]

E.R.   This is interesting.  I can't entirely agree with  your first point,  but i do agree entirely with your point about the 20 year-old staffer.
I think something to keep in mind is that in a democratic society, all government information is presumptively open. Citizens have a right to know what is being done on their behalf and in their name.
The laws that we have that restrict the release of some information require there be a specific reason or need for that information to be kept from public view.
Undoubtedly there are secrets that need to be kept.   The question is, which ones?  And how do we know?
Increasingly, there's a trend in government to presumptively treat information as secret.
Anyone with a passing familiarity with the Access to Information Act will know what I'm talking about.   
You ask for information X, and (after the passage of months) you get it.   When it eventually arrives, the information is presented in the clear, with no redactions (this is unusual, but it happens).  But what's interesting is how many of those documents arrive with "secret" emblazoned across the top.
What likely happened is this:  Someone inside government decided the info was secret and classified it. I asked for it.  The documents were pulled and were tested under Access to Information Act exemptions and determined NOT to be secret at all.   So, they're sent out free and clear.
The problem, it seems to me, is the frequent over-classification of information, that when tested fails to meet legitimate classification standards.
This leads to questions:  Why was the information over-classified to begin with?   Was it over-zealousness?  A misunderstanding of the rules? Were there legitimate reasons at first that evaporated over time?  Or, was it to protect embarrassing info?

OK.  Reading the above, I can see that you have no concept about how things are classified.   A document will be classified or designated according to its contents.  If one sentence  in the whole document is classifed or designated higher than the all the rest, that is the classification or designation that will be assigned to the whole document.  Of course, that document can be declassified or downgraded if that sentence is removed.  The whole document will have the classification of the highest classification assigned to any of its parts.

A document is to be graded according to its own content, and not because of its relationship or reference to another document. In those cases where the originator must compile information, and extract portions of information, from numerous documents, caution must be exercised with the aggregation of this information. The one exception to this policy is with respect to Cabinet Confidences.

Information shall be classified CONFIDENTIAL when unauthorized  disclosure, destruction, removal, modification or interruption could reasonably  be expected to cause  injury to the national interest.  As we move up the scale to SECRET we find the statement "when unauthorized  disclosure, destruction, removal, modification or interruption could reasonably  be expected to cause SERIOUS injury to the national interest".  TOP SECRET we would find seriousness has increased and the injury test would be: "would be expected to cause EXCEPTIONALLY GRAVE injury to the national interest". 

As for this:

think something to keep in mind is that in a democratic society, all government information is presumptively open. Citizens have a right to know what is being done on their behalf and in their name.

That is a truly naive presumption on the part of anyone. 

[recceguy]

E.R.   This is interesting.  I can't entirely agree with  your first point,  but i do agree entirely with your point about the 20 year-old staffer.
I think something to keep in mind is that in a democratic society, all government information is presumptively open. Citizens have a right to know what is being done on their behalf and in their name.
The laws that we have that restrict the release of some information require there be a specific reason or need for that information to be kept from public view.
Undoubtedly there are secrets that need to be kept.   The question is, which ones?  And how do we know?
Increasingly, there's a trend in government to presumptively treat information as secret.
Anyone with a passing familiarity with the Access to Information Act will know what I'm talking about.   
You ask for information X, and (after the passage of months) you get it.   When it eventually arrives, the information is presented in the clear, with no redactions (this is unusual, but it happens).  But what's interesting is how many of those documents arrive with "secret" emblazoned across the top.
What likely happened is this:  Someone inside government decided the info was secret and classified it. I asked for it.  The documents were pulled and were tested under Access to Information Act exemptions and determined NOT to be secret at all.   So, they're sent out free and clear.
The problem, it seems to me, is the frequent over-classification of information, that when tested fails to meet legitimate classification standards.
This leads to questions:  Why was the information over-classified to begin with?   Was it over-zealousness?  A misunderstanding of the rules? Were there legitimate reasons at first that evaporated over time?  Or, was it to protect embarrassing info?

 I'm sorry James, but that's pretty rich coming from someone that works at the CBC. The same organization that refuses to open it's operating documents to the Canadian public, when requested. That same public that pays to keep the CBC in business. The CBC is known to be amongst the stingiest organizations in Canada when it comes to releasing files requested under FOI, almost to the point that many would call unlawful and criminal. Yet they have the balls to demand the same of everyone else and raise all unholy hell when their demands aren't met. They are a government company and are beholden to the taxpayer for keeping them alive. You guys have to have a good hard look in the mirror before you dare accuse anyone of censorship and being secretive.

[cudmore]

hi recceguy.
I am an employee of the CBC -- not its president -- and cannot respond to any of this.
However, here's what the manager-types have said publicly about this recently.

http://cbc.radio-canada.ca/media/facts/20101201.shtml

http://cbc.radio-canada.ca/newsreleases/20101126.shtml

Here's a quote I pulled from the first link.

"Since CBC/Radio-Canada became subject to the Act in 2007, we have released over 70,000 pages of information. We also have responded to 1,206 out of the 1,262 requests received (to November 26, 2010). Indeed, if Quebecor’s article last week is to be believed (as cited above), we have received a couple of hundred ATIP requests from interested Canadians and more than 1,000 from our principal competitor in the province of Quebec."

"We have not always had a perfect record on Access to Information, nor do we now. In the first weeks of being subject to the Act, we received approximately 400 requests from David Statham, Michel Drapeau and their partners, who have publicly acknowledged working for Quebecor Media. The extraordinary circumstances caused by this unprecedented volume has been recognized by both the Office of the Information Commissioner and the courts, including the Federal Court of Appeal in a judgment rendered last week against Mr. Statham," (discussed in the second link).

[George Wallace]

 

Guess that is confirmation of:

[Technoviking]

I have been watching this thread for a while and have been loathe to jump in; however, I do feel I need to make a few points.


First, any reference to "media" on my part is not restricted to the CBC, even if I use the CBC as the example.  My problem is that the media seem less interested in reporting on events and then providing analysis, and more interested in having high ratings.  The main exception to this could be CBC radio, which has no adverts on any of its programming.  Having said that, however, given realities, I can only imagine that there is no real division between CBC Radio News and CBC Television.

If one were to critically analyse what is in any news story, one will invariably find a slant or an angle.  To illustrate my points, I will use this story from ctv.ca:

An Ottawa man charged with first-degree murder in connection to a bizarre and fatal crossbow attack appeared in a Toronto court on Friday morning.
Zhou Fang, 24, was remanded into police custody until Dec. 8.
Fang stared straight ahead and spoke softly when asked by the judge whether he understood the proceedings.

The victim in the shooting, 52-year-old Si Cheng, of Toronto, was shot in the back at the Main Street Library in Toronto's east end.

Police said the accused and the victim knew each other and it was not a random attack.

The library was filled with afternoon patrons at the time of the attack, many of whom witnessed a man calmly enter the building and fire a crossbow.

"There were a number of people inside and a number of people have been taken to various police stations to be questioned," Const. Tony Vella said late Thursday.

A short time after the incident Fang was arrested near Phenix Drive and Hollis Avenue, which is southeast of Danforth Avenue and Birchmount Road. That location is about three kilometres east of the crime scene.

There were reports that the shooter may have used pepper spray before firing the crossbow.

Paramedics pronounced the victim dead at the scene.

The man's body was removed from the library on a stretcher overnight. The arrow was still protruding from his body, which was covered with a sheet.

The cause of death will not be known until later Friday, or Saturday, Vella said.

Crossbows are not subject to the same restrictions as guns and can typically be purchased without the license or certificates required for firearms. On its website the RCMP said only crossbows that are less than 50 centimetres in length and can be fired with one hand, are prohibited.

Area resident Linus Smith said that as she sat in a restaurant across the street, she watched a man leave the library with something in his hand, get into a U-Haul van and drive off.

"He came out of the library, he was calm, he went into the U-Haul and he drove off," she said. "He didn't speed off or anything, he just drove."

Vella said it was the first time he had been involved in a homicide investigation involving a crossbow.

"You hear about shootings with guns or knives involved, but definitely a crossbow is a unique situation," Vella said.

Toronto Public Library said the Main Street branch will remain closed on Friday. Support and counselling will be provided to staff and patrons affected by the gruesome incident.

Those words that are highlighted are, in my opinion, "poetic licence" put in the story by the author.  They may sound benign, but they are subjective adjectives that the author is putting in. 
Consider this:

An Ottawa man charged with first-degree murder in connection to a bizarre and fatal crossbow attack appeared in a Toronto court on Friday morning.

versus this:

An Ottawa man charged with first-degree murder in connection to a fatal crossbow attack appeared in a Toronto court on Friday morning.

The author in the first sentence is telling us that this was bizarre.  In the second sentence, I have removed the subjective adjective and instead just have the facts, leaving it to the public to make up its mind if this was gruesome, brutal, bizarre or whatever.  It is this style of editorialising that I find objectionable.

Anyway, now look at the cbc reporting of the same story:

A 24-year-old man from Ottawa has been charged with first-degree murder after another man was killed with a crossbow inside a Toronto library.

Zhou Fang was arrested by police a short time after Si Cheng, 52, of Toronto, was shot inside the Toronto Public Library's Main Street branch in the middle of the afternoon on Thursday.

Police were called to the library near Main Street and Gerrard Street East in the city's east end just after 4 p.m.

Si was pronounced dead at the scene.

Witnesses said that they saw a man approach the victim, who was sitting on a bench in the library, and pepper-spray him. He was then shot, either in the face or the back, witnesses said.

Police officers saw a man run north on Main Street after the shooting. He jumped into a U-Haul rental truck and drove off. Police tracked the truck and arrested the driver.

Police believe the victim was targeted, although they are still trying to determine the motive.

"It was not a random attack," said police spokesman Const. Tony Vella.

It's believed to be the first time a crossbow has been used in a homicide in Toronto.

Zhou appeared in Ontario Court of Justice at College Park on Friday morning and was remanded in custody until Dec. 8.

The CBC story tells the same story, and any use of subjectivity is attributed to the police or witnesses, not the author.

So, maybe the CBC website is different from the radio (in which every story opening is set up, and then a "twist" is delivered with the word "but...")  Reading the site, and reading the story is actually more balanced than my initial thought; however, the CBC Radio News does seem to follow this pattern:
"Today the PM announced that Penquins are now free to own horses, but as so-and-so reports, not all pigs are happy about the news...."

I would much rather see information presented, and I'll form my own opinion, without all the theatrics. 

Of course, editorials are just that, and I think back to the mid 1990s, when I watched a news program on CITY-TV.  They presented an editorial news item, but wasn't labelled as such.  I was incensed, and I went to the "internet" (as such as it was back then) and lodged a complaint with the CRTC.  To CITY-TV's credit, they responded rather well, and I noted that the words "Editorial" started to appear when they were presenting opinion vice news.


I know that this has little to do with the allegations of JTF 2 wrongdoing in Afghanistan, but neither does the story.  The story is about JTF-2 members alledgedly witnessing an illegal killing by members of another nations' forces.  So, that title is itself misleading.


In conclusion, I would offer that all media would gain more credibility if it stopped working on the "flash" and focus instead on the substance.  I could care less if Peter Mansbridge's studio has a new look.  Or if Sandy Rinaldo gets a new teleprompter.  I would rather just get information.  And please start getting credible experts.  If I see Mr. Stephen Staples falsely represented as a "Defence Expert", I'm going to lose my mind, and I think I could end up on the "News at 11"   If you bring him on, please label him correctly: a self-proclaimed Peace Activist.  (In my opinion, he's a social engineer who claims to be a socialist but fails to acknowledge the reality of the world and that some times, bad people have to be stopped by killing them).

[FoverF]

I think the thread title is just a typo.

Having read the story, and read around it a little, I can only conclude that the title was meant to be:

"JTF 2 cleared of accusations of wrongdoing, now face allegations of rightdoing for reporting potential wrongdoing by others."

[Michael O'Leary]

JTF2 command 'encouraged' war crimes, soldier alleges

Article link.

A member of Canada's elite special forces unit says he felt his peers were being "encouraged" by the Canadian Forces chain of command to commit war crimes in Afghanistan, according to new documents obtained by CBC News.

The documents from the military ombudsman's office show the member of the covert unit Joint Task Force 2, or JTF2, approached the watchdog in June 2008 to report the allegations of wrongdoing he had first made to his superior officers in 2006.

The soldier told the ombudsman's office "that although he reported what he witnessed to his chain of command, he does not believe they are investigating, and are being 'very nice to him,' " according to the documents, which CBC News obtained through access to information.

As such, the soldier alleged, the chain of command helped create an atmosphere that tolerated war crimes.

The ombudsman's documents state the soldier was subsequently directed to the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service, CFNIS, which in turn launched its own investigation.

The CFNIS told the ombudsman the investigation was "now their No. 1 priority."
News tips

If you have more information on this story, or other story idea, please contact investigations@cbc.ca.

The member alleged that a fellow JTF2 member was involved in the 2006 shooting death of an Afghan who had his hands up in the act of surrender. That CFNIS probe ended without any charges.

The soldier who raised those allegations also claimed that in January 2008, his team was sent to conduct a mission alongside an American special operations team. He said he witnessed the U.S. forces kill a man who was wounded and unarmed.

The documents make clear that the soldier didn't believe the military was taking his allegations seriously and that he had lost faith in the forces' leadership.

He told the ombudsman's office in one of many telephone conversations he felt "more and more of his peers are being encouraged to commit war crimes by the chain of command … which they may be held accountable for one day as superiors walk away."

The soldier said he wasn't coming forward to have "the guys who pull the trigger" investigated, who he said were "being incited to do those things" by their superiors.

"This is done by promoting those who do, and not promoting those who don't," the ombudsman's office staffer handling the file wrote in the document.

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2011/01/18/military-jtf2-probe.html?ref=rss#ixzz1BRgCyseC

More at link.

[milnews.ca]

<hair splitting on media word choice rant>

JTF2 command 'encouraged' war crimes, soldier alleges

Note the level of "certainty" of the CBC headline, compared to this other story that ran at about the same time:  "No proof of Afghan adviser's shooting claims: probe".  This, especially when a) the CFNIS news release says pretty clearly:

.... The CFNIS investigation determined that no service or criminal offences were committed ….

, and b)  the Canadian Press headline says, "Military police dismiss Afghan adviser's claim that soldiers killed unarmed teen".  How did others headline the story?  Check here, here or here.

Also check out how far into the story you have to read to get to this tidbit:

.... That CFNIS probe ended without any charges ....

</hair splitting on media word choice rant>

[Nauticus]

I have been watching this thread for a while and have been loathe to jump in; however, I do feel I need to make a few points.


First, any reference to "media" on my part is not restricted to the CBC, even if I use the CBC as the example.  My problem is that the media seem less interested in reporting on events and then providing analysis, and more interested in having high ratings.  The main exception to this could be CBC radio, which has no adverts on any of its programming.  Having said that, however, given realities, I can only imagine that there is no real division between CBC Radio News and CBC Television.

If one were to critically analyse what is in any news story, one will invariably find a slant or an angle.  To illustrate my points, I will use this story from ctv.ca:
Those words that are highlighted are, in my opinion, "poetic licence" put in the story by the author.  They may sound benign, but they are subjective adjectives that the author is putting in. 
Consider this:versus this:The author in the first sentence is telling us that this was bizarre.  In the second sentence, I have removed the subjective adjective and instead just have the facts, leaving it to the public to make up its mind if this was gruesome, brutal, bizarre or whatever.  It is this style of editorialising that I find objectionable.

Anyway, now look at the cbc reporting of the same story:The CBC story tells the same story, and any use of subjectivity is attributed to the police or witnesses, not the author.

So, maybe the CBC website is different from the radio (in which every story opening is set up, and then a "twist" is delivered with the word "but...")  Reading the site, and reading the story is actually more balanced than my initial thought; however, the CBC Radio News does seem to follow this pattern:
"Today the PM announced that Penquins are now free to own horses, but as so-and-so reports, not all pigs are happy about the news...."

I would much rather see information presented, and I'll form my own opinion, without all the theatrics. 

Of course, editorials are just that, and I think back to the mid 1990s, when I watched a news program on CITY-TV.  They presented an editorial news item, but wasn't labelled as such.  I was incensed, and I went to the "internet" (as such as it was back then) and lodged a complaint with the CRTC.  To CITY-TV's credit, they responded rather well, and I noted that the words "Editorial" started to appear when they were presenting opinion vice news.


I know that this has little to do with the allegations of JTF 2 wrongdoing in Afghanistan, but neither does the story.  The story is about JTF-2 members alledgedly witnessing an illegal killing by members of another nations' forces.  So, that title is itself misleading.


In conclusion, I would offer that all media would gain more credibility if it stopped working on the "flash" and focus instead on the substance.  I could care less if Peter Mansbridge's studio has a new look.  Or if Sandy Rinaldo gets a new teleprompter.  I would rather just get information.  And please start getting credible experts.  If I see Mr. Stephen Staples falsely represented as a "Defence Expert", I'm going to lose my mind, and I think I could end up on the "News at 11"   If you bring him on, please label him correctly: a self-proclaimed Peace Activist.  (In my opinion, he's a social engineer who claims to be a socialist but fails to acknowledge the reality of the world and that some times, bad people have to be stopped by killing them).

It all depends. If the individual did, in fact, speak "softly", then it is not subjective on the part of the reporter. It would be objective observation. Likewise, if a witness described his walking as "calm", again, it may be the witness' bias, but it should be reported as-is and not changed or adjusted if reported.

I understand your point, but if these things were true, then it should be reported.

[Journeyman]

JTF2 command 'encouraged' war crimes, soldier alleges

This is further repetition of the same story, which should have been headlined:

CFNIS STILL can't find any evidence of wrong-doing !!!

--- note the extra exclamation marks to help sell the story ---    


So, in addition to the single-source used to spin the story multiple times, commented on here, we now have an ATI report of THE SAME SOLDIER saying he "does not believe they are investigating [despite the outcome being that they obviously did investigate and found no improprieties attributable to JTF2], and are being 'very nice to him,'" [OMG!!]


Substantive news value = 0   


Edit: typo

[George Wallace]

I understand your point, but if these things were true, then it should be reported.

And if they are FALSE?

What is your opinion on that?  Do we continue to perpetuate a myth or lie?

[Container]

And if it gets looked into for years and everyone disagrees with one guy should the news report that one guys opinion as fact?

It reminds me of the guys on the boards who disagree with everyone else. The news shouldnt be an outlet for "that guy" to say whatever he wants in absense of any facts.

Of course they should report it if its true- but they shouldnt report things that have no evidence. Go and investigate if your curious but shut up until there is evidence of something.

[57Chevy]

From CBC News December 01, 2010 (Video)
Canada's Secret Special Forces JTF2 Acussed Of Murder Cover Up

[Journeyman]

From CBC News December 01, 2010 (Video)
Canada's Secret Special Forces JTF2 Acussed Of Murder Cover Up

Is there a reason for posting a two-month old video, rehashing the same disproven allegations?
Did you miss the previous 4 pages?

[57Chevy]

Is there a reason for posting a two-month old video, rehashing the same disproven allegations?
Did you miss the previous 4 pages?

I reread the whole thread.
The video headline (JTF2 Acussed Of Murder Cover Up) is a far cry from allegations of...
and it is what was presented on the News.

[Journeyman]

....and it is what was presented on the News.

Yes, in December.

[milnews.ca]

Highlights mine....

The Canadian Forces National Investigation Service (CFNIS) has concluded its investigation into allegations of criminal wrongdoing by Canadian Special Operations Forces personnel in Afghanistan. The investigation, known as “Project Sand Trap,” found no evidence that criminal acts were committed by any Canadian Forces members.

This investigation was launched after allegations were brought to the attention of the CF Ombudsman’s office, and were passed on to Military Police. Due to the serious and sensitive nature of the allegations, the file was assigned to the CFNIS in June of 2008. A full-time investigative task force was assigned to the case, conducting approximately a hundred interviews and collecting evidence in both Canada and Afghanistan. The investigation was divided into two separate files so that the most serious allegations against the CF member could be addressed first.

Phase one of the investigation focused on allegations that a CF member committed criminal acts between 2005 and 2006; namely, two allegations of negligence, one allegation of assault, and one allegation of murder. There was no evidence found to support these allegations; moreover, the investigation determined that the CF member acted within the Rules of Engagement in all instances.  Therefore, phase one was closed in October of 2009. 

Phase two of the investigation focused on whether CF members failed to properly report serious criminal offences allegedly committed by individuals from other nations in 2007 and 2008. The investigation found no evidence of criminal wrongdoing by any members of the Canadian Forces. Information collected during the course of the investigation pertaining to non-CF members was brought to the attention of the appropriate foreign investigative authorities.

“The CFNIS has devoted considerable time and human resources to these investigations,” said Lieutenant-Colonel Robert Delaney, Commanding Officer of the CFNIS.  “Project Sand Trap was a highly complex undertaking and the investigators collected and analyzed a large amount of information in order to determine the facts in this case. In the end, those facts did not support any criminal charges against any CF members.” ....

CF Info-Machine, 15 Dec 11