Harper pulls a Bush and censors the media...

[Shawnski]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

ANYONE who defends the governmental censor of the press, especially when it is on the coverage of the result of government policy, has a few screws loose.

Guess I have a screw loose then. I think it is a private moment as do the troops themselves. They must have screws loose too then, eh?

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

The nation has the right to know what the cost of supporting a military incursions is, and they have the right to honor the dead. The government prohibiting the media from reporting the facts is dispicable.

So all the coverage of this tragic event has gone unnoticed by the nation? Everyone missed it? They MUST be able to see this one moment to determine the cost of supporting the peace keeping efforts?

I don't buy it Lanny.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Shawnski

Guess I have a screw loose then. I think it is a private moment as do the troops themselves. They must have screws loose too then, eh?

They have their right to privacy, no doubt. But the story needs to be covered. I would not condone the filming of a the funeral, or of the family at all. But the death of soldiers, and their return to Canadian soil, needs to be covered. That displays consequence to action. That is what the media is supposed to do. The obtrusive sensationalistic bull**** is wrong, but not reporting the story is even worse.

So all the coverage of this tragic event has gone unnoticed by the nation? Everyone missed it? They MUST be able to see this one moment to determine the cost of supporting the peace keeping efforts?

I don't buy it Lanny.

Prior to this, were you aware that 19 Canadian soldiers had been killed in Afghanistan? Heck, I have no idea how many Americans have been killed in Afghanistan because it is not covered in the media down here. The deaths of soldiers in Iraq get a 10 second sound byte and that is it, on to Bobo the skateboard riding llama! The media is not encouraged to discuss the casualties in Iraq or Afghanistan, and they happily oblige. IMO, that is a dis-service to the people and an insult to the dead.

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Read and learn what? What does this clown have to say that has any bearing on the Canadian government's censoring of the media? Roy Clancy is an idiot of he thinks for a second this issue is about the position of a flag on a poll. Roy Clancy is missing the point all together as this is about his right to write this column at all. I could give a steaming coil about the petty politics between the Liberals and Conservatives, what I care about is the government muzzling the mechanism that provides the consequences of action for the people to see.

ANYONE who defends the governmental censor of the press, especially when it is on the coverage of the result of government policy, has a few screws loose. You give an inch, the government will take a mile. The censoring of the media is the issue here, not the flag at half staff or the wishes of the family, all arm waiving by the usual suspects to blur the issue. I guess the media should have been barred from covering the deaths of the four Mounties in Alberta last year too? That was intrusive on the grieving families was it not? Let me guess, that was different in some way? The nation has the right to know what the cost of supporting a military incursions is, and they have the right to honor the dead. The government prohibiting the media from reporting the facts is dispicable.

They are not censoring the facts, they are ensuring the privacy of the funeral. They still show the dead being loaded on the plane for the trip home. Where is the censorship?

[White Doors]

"They have their right to privacy, no doubt. But the story needs to be covered. I would not condone the filming of a the funeral, or of the family at all. But the death of soldiers, and their return to Canadian soil, needs to be covered. That displays consequence to action. That is what the media is supposed to do. The obtrusive sensationalistic bull**** is wrong, but not reporting the story is even worse"

Well you have misread what they did then Lanny.
They are not allowed to cover the funeral - they are allowed to cover everythign else. So I assume that you no longer have a problem with it?

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by White Doors

"They have their right to privacy, no doubt. But the story needs to be covered. I would not condone the filming of a the funeral, or of the family at all. But the death of soldiers, and their return to Canadian soil, needs to be covered. That displays consequence to action. That is what the media is supposed to do. The obtrusive sensationalistic bull**** is wrong, but not reporting the story is even worse"

Well you have misread what they did then Lanny.
They are not allowed to cover the funeral - they are allowed to cover everythign else. So I assume that you no longer have a problem with it?

No, they weren't allowed to cover the Repatriation ceremony. link

Prime Minister Stephen Harper was defiant Tuesday as several of his own MPs and the families of deceased soldiers criticized him for closing a military base to the repatriation ceremony of four Canadian soldiers recently killed in Afghanistan.

[White Doors]

Yes, you are correct - that's what I was meaning. That is the only thing that they have changed. We still know it happened and they are allowed to cover the dead soldiers being loaded ON the plane, the only difference is that at the repatriation ceremony the family is present.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by White Doors

Read and learn:

http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Columnis...6/1550728.html

If you get your learnin' from the Calgary Sun I feel sorry for you. It explains a lot though.

[Shawnski]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

They have their right to privacy, no doubt. But the story needs to be covered. I would not condone the filming of a the funeral, or of the family at all. But the death of soldiers, and their return to Canadian soil, needs to be covered. That displays consequence to action. That is what the media is supposed to do. The obtrusive sensationalistic bull**** is wrong, but not reporting the story is even worse.

The story is being reported, Lanny. Just one private moment is not being filmed. I am OK with that, and as indicated before, the soldiers prefer it that way. This CTV article covers most of what is being discussed here, including the soldiers concerns about people understanding the cost of the conflict.

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Prior to this, were you aware that 19 Canadian soldiers had been killed in Afghanistan? Heck, I have no idea how many Americans have been killed in Afghanistan because it is not covered in the media down here. The deaths of soldiers in Iraq get a 10 second sound byte and that is it, on to Bobo the skateboard riding llama! The media is not encouraged to discuss the casualties in Iraq or Afghanistan, and they happily oblige. IMO, that is a dis-service to the people and an insult to the dead.

Yes, fully aware, and quite saddened. Since the friendly fire incident, 15 more soldiers have fallen, many more injured. And I recall the coverage of each and every one of the incidents.

Here they are:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/af...ties/2006.html

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/af...2002-2005.html

Coverage in Canada is far more indepth than that in the States. No question. Allowing the families a private and personal moment away from the media hordes isn't an issue to me. They get every other minute in their lives to cover the story.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

No, they weren't allowed to cover the Repatriation ceremony. link

I find it quite conspicuous that the military decided to back the plane towards a fence; and that the coffins were clearly visible with the high end video equipment that those TV folks happen to keep handy.

To me; the press was kept out of the family's faces while still being able to cover the event.

Plus the little blurb at the end that the guys and gals who serve in the millitary want it this way.

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

If you get your learnin' from the Calgary Sun I feel sorry for you. It explains a lot though.

I get my learning from a wide variety of sources.
I am not closed minded. No need to feel sorry for me, thanks for the warm fuzzies though.

[CaptainCrunch]

I've been in Toronto for the last few days and haven't had access to this board. But I thought I would stupidly wade in here.

I don't see where there is true censorship of the press, they've been given access to the senior commanders in the field, they've been given access to the families that are willing to talk to them. They had access to the scene of the explosion, and have pictures of the devestation. Those are the stories of the cost of war, whether they show pictures of the repatriation of the bodies is irrelevant at this point. We have an understanding of the cost of war. I think the repatriation of the soldiers should be a private thing out of respect alone. I think everyone of those troops would be insulted if they heard that someone wanted to use this ceremony for a political cause or to feed a media feeding frenzy.

On the flag lowing ceremony, I think its great that the Conservatives have gone back to the older tradition of lowing the flags in the home communities and home bases of the troops who were killed in action. The only time that flags should be lowered nationally is rememberance day or after a major national disastor. So in this case the Conservatives have removed the political shadiness that the Liberals have attached to this tradition.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by ken0042

To me; the press was kept out of the family's faces while still being able to cover the event.

I hadn't heard of any problems with the press in families faces. Any sources? (honestly curious, I haven't heard of any incidents)

If the families had all requested it, then perhaps I could see it being on a case by case basis, but:

Liberal MP Paul Steckle said Lincoln Dinning, the father of Cpl. Matthew Dinning who was also killed in the blast, told him Monday night that he had wanted journalists to photograph the homecoming of his son's flag-draped coffin and that O'Connor's office hadn't asked him his opinion.

So at least one family wasn't asked for their wishes.

And for the Prime Minister to say ""It is not about photo ops and media coverage," the prime minister replied. "It is about what is in the best interest of the families." When apparently he hasn't even asked at least one of the families what their interests are shows a revealing arrogance, as well as a disturbing disregard for the media's purpose.

I don't think anyone wants families harassed by journalists. But O'Conner and Harper appear to have created an issue where none existed before by implimenting unrequired, paternalistic restrictions.

[Bobblehead]

And I figured there would be an article on what the actual troops would like.
link

That to me is more important than the wants of reporters or politicians.

Many Canadian soldiers serving in Afghanistan agree with the Conservative government's decision to ban media coverage of ceremonies marking the arrival in Canada of the remains of soldiers killed in foreign action.

Some acknowledged they had mixed feelings, though.
"In some ways, it would be good for the general public to see. It would give them an idea of what's going on over here," said Master Cpl. Chris Schmidt.

He also noted that since the military is a very big but close-knit family, seeing the ceremony on television might help soldiers throughout Canada deal with the deaths of their comrades.

"There's guys back home that knew these guys," Schmidt said. "Maybe that's the only way they'll be able to actually get any type of closure too."

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

And I figured there would be an article on what the actual troops would like.
link

That to me is more important than the wants of reporters or politicians.

Thanks for that.

It just goes to prove that it is not a straight forward "right or wrong" situation. Opinions on what is appropriate vary even among those involved. Some family member want it private, others want the world to know about their sacrifice.

[mykalberta]

This is about dead soldiers. If the families want their names released call CBC and blab to them.

Its not the responsibility of the Federal Goverment to provide private media companies (CBC "isnt" a gov mouthpiece) with information about dead government employees.

The CBC can show what they want and the feds cant do a lick about it, but the feds dont need to provide cbc with the information.

There is a difference.

MYK

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

I hadn't heard of any problems with the press in families faces. Any sources? (honestly curious, I haven't heard of any incidents)

Nope, purely specualtion on my part. I'm just thinking of the funerals where I have been sitting in the front row; they have all been for elderly relatives. I kno what that grief is like and couldn't imagine having to be on camera; never mind having a son who was cut down in the prime of life. Being concerned with if I appear to be sad enough, or too sad, or whatever.

We all handle death a little differently. Just thinking of my perspective.

I also saw an interview with one of the fathers of the fallen soldiers. He said if we wanted to grieve with them then we could lower our own flags to half mast. The flag I have hanging in my cubicle is now flying at half mast; and that's how I am honouring the soldiers; as per the father's wishes.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Its not the responsibility of the Federal Goverment to provide private media companies (CBC "isnt" a gov mouthpiece) with information about dead government employees.

The CBC can show what they want and the feds cant do a lick about it, but the feds dont need to provide cbc with the information.

There is a difference.

MYK

Well, there is the freedom of information act. The government has to comply with any formal information request put forward. This includes the lists of names of soldiers killed in action, right up to the Prime Minister's email (redacted for security purposes). IIRC, when the public safety mechanism is involved it is common practice to release the names to the press immediately following the notification of next of kin. Whether this information is released further is up to the press agency in question.

I have no problem with the government "requesting" that information be withheld for given reasons. Where I have a problem is where the government says that the media cannot do something, requires censor rights, or withholds information requested of it. This could lead to bigger fish down the road. They took their first inch...

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Where I have a problem is where the government says that the media cannot do something, requires censor rights, or withholds information requested of it. This could lead to bigger fish down the road. They took their first inch...

I suppose it all depends on how you look at it. You see it that way; I see it as the military not allowing TV crews to film a military operation that is taking place on a military base.

This next bit is a little far fetched; but what if the government is pulling a "James Bond" type of manouvre, and these 4 soldiers are being listed as killed so they can go on to carry out some covert opperation? And said operation is to capture Osama Bin Laden along with covert US and British forces. Or a different scenario where this leutenant had sensitive information on the enemy; and the Taliban was hunting him down? This becomes a debriefing and a witness relocation effort.

Once again, I don't think this is the case, but my point is that all military activity is not for public eyes; and how can you conduct secret operations when everything but those operations or carried live on TV?