10 April 2007

Media vultures barred from...

Feeding on soldiers' families' grief...

Media will not be allowed into CFB Trenton to cover this week's repatriation of six Canadian soldiers killed Sunday in Afghanistan, The Intelligencer has learned.

"Some of the family members of the fallen soldiers have requested that no media be allowed on the tarmac and we are accommodating that request," Second Lt. Jennifer Jones of the base's public affairs office told The Intelligencer Tuesday morning.

Thank goodness for this.

If I lost a child, under any circumstances, the last thing I would welcome is someone looking to make a buck off my misery.

I'm sure the media can report this sad event without having to wrench a ten second sound-bite out of some grieving mother's soul.

Technorati Tags: , ,


29 comments:

Anonymous said...

Have to agree with you strongly. I hope that many of the young and motivated Bloggingtories that so strongly support the war join up and do a few missions to help out. (real conservative)

Anonymous said...

DUMB. DUMB. DUMB.

If true.

Neo Conservative said...

*
"Anonymous said... DUMB. DUMB. DUMB.

lloyd robertson sticks a camera or a microphone in my face at a family members funeral... i'll kick his teeth in.

*

Mike said...

How many of these ceremonies do we have to see before it's not "news" anymore ?

Mainstream Paparazzi

Neo Conservative said...

*
more like stalkerazzi.

the media talk a good line about "respect", but they just wanna strip the meat from the bones.

it's shameful

*

The Angry Reporter/Reporter en Colère said...

I'm a news reporter, and I have to say none of us like going to these things, and I'm kinda glad we're not welcome. It means I won't have to go.

That being said, I have enough experience in this to know that sooner or later we'll be blamed for not highlighting the suffering and sacrifice made by Canadians in war zone.

But it's OK. Kick reporters, it's a lot easier than to blame policy-makers.

Neo Conservative said...

*
"The Angry Reporter/Reporter en Colère said... I plan to use this blog to say what p**ses me off"

cbc right? no media bias there, huh?

you try to come on like some straight up, hard-hitting, no holds barred crusader... but you have to censor the word piss?

and then, "kick reporters... sooner or later we'll be blamed..."

puh-lease... take your "poor me shtick" over to liblogs... cherniak's always breakin' into tears over some perceived injustice... they live for shit like that.

*

The Angry Reporter/Reporter en Colère said...

I suppose some people aren't worth debating with, as your nick implies.

Neo Conservative said...

*
"The Angry Reporter/Reporter en Colère said... I suppose some people aren't worth debating with"

ok let's start over... i advance the broad spectrum thesis... that most mainstream journalists lean perceptibly to the left... even taking the cbc out of the mix.

your turn... and pls... a little lighter on "us poor journalists...

*

The Angry Reporter/Reporter en Colère said...

Well, most journalists I know and work with feel they belong to the center. In my newsroom, there's a few who admit being downright conservative, though under close scrutiny I'd say they're more libertarian than conservative.

But to anyone at the right, we'll always be to the left. And to leftists, we're always too much to the right.

That being said, the journalists I deal with are professional enough not to let their values get in the way.

I can't speak for columnists and editorial writers of course, who are paid for the opinions they hold.

In any case, it's a lose-lose debate. If we report a goof by the Liberals (say, the sponsorship scandal) we're accused of playing Harper's agenda. And if we point out Canadian's concerns with the C.P., then we're bleeding-heart Liberals.

So I don't think I can provide an answer that will satisfy you.

Neo Conservative said...

*
"The Angry Reporter/Reporter en Colère said... So I don't think I can provide an answer that will satisfy you."

you could try.

how about explaining why the cbc falls so consistently on the left side of the spectrum.

perhaps explain how you resolve your personal beliefs if and when they rub up against a corporate agenda.

it isn't about satisfying me, or anyone else... just tell us about the conflict, or lack thereof.

*

The Angry Reporter/Reporter en Colère said...

Dear Neo-Conservative,

The CBC falls to the left-side of YOUR spectrum. But the accusation is a bit broad. If you could give specifics, I could try to answer more specificaly.

It's important to keep in mind that media organisations try to reflect the values most popular with their viewers. So on that level, if you have a generaly left-of-center population, you'll have it reflected in the media.

I do enjoy the opportunity you give me to debate, without insulting me like others do.

Neo Conservative said...

*
"The Angry Reporter/Reporter en Colère said... It's important to keep in mind that media organisations try to reflect the values most popular with their viewers."

So the CBC's target demographic is Islamic Jihad?

It's something I've long suspected. (grin)

I have to ask, just how long have you been following the BT aggregator?

There are countless instances of blatant partisan reportage... the most aggregious examples invariably committed by the Mother Corp.

We could start here with Stephen Taylor, if you like.

Or how about this...

Note that then Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chretien himself, worked to spring Khadr senior from a Pakistani prison in 1996.

"Chretien personally intervened on behalf of Khadr during a 1996 state visit to Pakistan. The suspected Egyptian Islamic Jihad terrorist was released shortly after Chretien's diplomatic lobbying campaign."

A fact that's curiously missing from the "INDEPTH" CBC reportage.

Or another fave...

So why is the taxpayer funded CBC sucking up to this fundamentalist psychopath?

We could move on to the cartoon picture of Stephen Harper (as a baby throwing blocks)... that, strategically cropped on the web page, falsely presents Harper doing a Nazi salute.

But for now, you could try explain the three examples above.

*

The Angry Reporter/Reporter en Colère said...

Uh...that's a broad generalization, isn't it?

One of the common misconception about journalism is that every little bit of news MUST contain all espects of an issue and all opposing points of views in order to be objective.

Fortunately, it doesn't work that way. Otherwise we couldn't even mention the fact the PM was in Vimy last week without having to quote every anti-war liberal and commie around.

Not sure who Steven Taylor is. He's obviously a well-connected blogger. Major media think they're keeping up with the times by quoting blogs, which doesn't mean they're reliable sources of information.

About the Chretien/Khadr situation. I can only assume the Canadian government has a duty to protect its citizens abroad, which is why the PM had to intervene, no matter how much he may have despised Khadr. Why wasn't it mentinoned in the CBC report? You may see it as a proof of bias. I see it more as a basic FAQ sheet which can't claim to hold EVERYTHING there is to know about Khadr. I find the facts to be straight to the point for basic research. How relevant was Chretien's intervention in freeing him is open to interpretation. Remember this was before 9/11.

As for for the profile on the terrorist, your question is legitimate, but I bring it back to what I wrote at the beggining: we cover terrorist news EVERY DAY. How they blow-up this, how they blow-up that, how they kill women and children, etc. Here, the reporter had a rare opportunity to get into one's inner circle and see THEIR perspective. I find it very interesting. The other side of the story, about his murderous rampage, is reported every other time we talk about him.

As for editorial cartoons, well, every newspaper in the book tends to ridicule politicians, and no one gets spared. You may find it offensive because you like the guy, but our medias aren't short of degrading cartoons of Stephane Dion, Al Gore, Hilary Clinton etc. It's all a matter of perspective.

Not sure I understood your line about following BT aggregator. What's BT?

I didn't forget your question about how I handle assignments that clash with my values. More on this shortly.

Neo Conservative said...

*
"The Angry Reporter/Reporter en Colère said... Not sure I understood your line about following BT aggregator. What's BT?"

Just assumed you picked up my commentary through the Blogging Tories news aggregator.

It's the cure for the pestilential "internetian influenza" being spread by slimy bottom-feeding blogging dippers and liblogs.

i'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree about the cbc... but nonetheless, i do appreciate your input.

looking forward to hearing more about "faustian" assignments.

*

The Angry Reporter/Reporter en Colère said...

I heard about the anger provoked by Fife's report by accident, and I followed links, and found myself blogging for the first time with conservative-types :-) I don't know Fife personaly, but I gave my opinion as a reporter on the field. Most of the responses were rude and dowright offensive. You're the first one who takes time to talk. Very nice.

As for Faustian incidents, I can really think of one:

A few years ago, when Karla Homolka was getting out of prison, a quick survey around the newsroom proved that none of us wanted to pursue the story beyond her release and the anger of her victim's families. We all felt that since she served her sentence, we had no right to pursue her the way we did.

Answer from the producer: I know how you feel, but TORONTO wants wall-to-wall coverage, so off you go!

When we were asked to try to find out where she lived, almost all of us said that if we found out she lived down the street, we probably would keep it to ourselves, as a way to stick it to Toronto.

We were told we were not team players, and that was that. One reporter did make it a mission to find Holmoka. He did. He got padded on the back by some. Ridiculed by most. And last I heard, his career didn't advance any further.

And last summer, during Israel's attack against Hezbolah positions in Lebanon, we were told we had to give the exact, minute-for-minute coverage for both sides. If we did a sob story about an Israeli who's house was bombed, we had to give the exact same amount of time to a Lebanese family who's house was destroyed. It became tricky after Lebanese casualties were 10-to-one versus the Israelis, but the order was clear: we don't want to piss off either sides. We did anyway, but just mentioning the subject puts us in the middle of an ideological war!

Neo Conservative said...

"The Angry Reporter/Reporter en Colère said... It became tricky after Lebanese casualties were 10-to-one versus the Israelis, but the order was clear: we don't want to piss off either sides. We did anyway, but just mentioning the subject puts us in the middle of an ideological war!

That's a little disingenuous... the Israelis weren't taking mobile missile launchers into civilian neighbourhoods, launching a strike and then boogeying before the inevitable Israeli counter-strike took out the launcher and surrounding territory. The Islamotards sacrificed those people as surely if they had flown the jets themselves.

And where was the mainstream media when Hezbollah was salting destroyed buildings with the same dead childrens bodies... over and over again?

And let's not forget who meticulously built up their fortifications and kidnapped an Israeli soldier to touch off the powderkeg in the first place.

That was a classic propaganda war and the msm went for it... hook, line and sinker.

*

The Angry Reporter/Reporter en Colère said...

Ya see, this is where the MSM has a problem doing its job: BOTH sides claimed the other was just doing propaganda, and we're somewhat expected to side with one over the other. And at that point, no matter what the media says, we'll always be accused of falling for the other side's propaganda. The mainstream media repeated over and over that the Hezbolah hid its launchers inside civilian populations. But such info, no matter how much we highlight it, gets lost in the propaganda war.

Another interesting tidbit: I covered the news from Quebec, where the Lebanese community is extremely important. But Quebec Lebanese have one thing in common: they're CHRISTIANS and they have nothing to do with the Hezbolah or the Israeli army. And yet, they received the bombs on their head and had nowhere to turn.

Neo Conservative said...

"The Angry Reporter/Reporter en Colère said... The mainstream media repeated over and over that the Hezbolah hid its launchers inside civilian populations."

wow... i sure missed that reportage. can you point to a mainstream outlet, an actual url, i mean, that reported that?

i'd also like your thoughts on how stringers for the msm followed "green helmet guy" and his refrigerated truck around as he salted various locations in lebanon with the bodies of dead children.

as for having to choose sides... how about reporting what actually was proven to have happened?

*

The Angry Reporter/Reporter en Colère said...

Well, proven by whom? Conspiracy-theorists or reporters on the ground? All the links you've provided me with are all fellow bloggers who analyse bits and pieces through their own eyeglass...

Neo Conservative said...

*
"The Angry Reporter/Reporter en Colère said... Well, proven by whom? Conspiracy-theorists or reporters on the ground?"

by "reporters on the ground... i guess you mean the poorly paid local stringers who collaborated with hezbollah by perpetuating the lies and who also got caught submitting poorly photoshopped fake atrocities to reuters and like agencies?

you don't find the pictures of "green helmet guy" and his refrigerated truck carrying the corpse of the same dead child to various different demolished buildings sufficiently convincing?

why not google "green helmet guy" yourself and come back and "report what you have "discovered".

because you may have to wait a bit for a "signed confession".

*

The Angry Reporter/Reporter en Colère said...

You're still quoting from blogs, and I can't assume it's anymore trustworthy than a discredited photographer's.

The war in the middle-east is a PROPAGANDA war. And MSM are well aware of that, and they're not willing to bet that one side is more honest than the other.

For you to be convinced that the Green truck guy is all the proof you need that casualties on the Lebanese side are a fabrication, it's a leap of faith that MSM won't make.

And you should know that there are just as many on the Arabic side who can claim, proof on hand, that the 9/11 attack is the work of the Mossad. Why aren't you reporting that in your blog?

Neo Conservative said...

*
"The Angry Reporter/Reporter en Colère said... You're still quoting from blogs"

said the angry reporter from his blogger profile... so just prove me wrong... you don't seem all that angry, or i must say, diligent. show me where the bloggers are getting the facts wrong.

you're also equating the hysterical arab propaganda machine, the perpetrators of "the protocols of the elders of zion" with north american bloggers?

not too terribly convincing.

*

The Angry Reporter/Reporter en Colère said...

This is why most journalists don,t bother arguing with conspiracy theorists. The answer is always the same: prove me wrong, even though I can't prove you I'm right!

You can't do that when the connecting dots between pseudo-facts only exist in one's imagination.

I gave you a great example of something that angered me with the media, re: the Homolka Case, but you bring me back to a part of the world I've never been to.

Everyone knows the Protocol of the Elders of Zion are a fraud. Why do you even bring it up?

Neo Conservative said...

*
"The Angry Reporter/Reporter en Colère said... Everyone knows the Protocol of the Elders of Zion are a fraud. Why do you even bring it up?"

I was answering your question...

Why aren't you reporting that in your blog?"

...because anyone who can say, with a straight face...

"many on the Arabic side who can claim, proof on hand, that the 9/11 attack is the work of the Mossad"

...needs a healthy dose of hyperbole... not to mention reality... poured down their throat

*

The Angry Reporter/Reporter en Colère said...

You see, I was making a point with the 9/11 conspiracy theorists. They get their sources...from other bloggers. And when challenged, they say...prove me wrong.

You seem to take the Israeli issue to heart. Are you Israeli? It could explain your reluctance to accept the Arab perspective, no matter how much you think it's fraudulent.

The Angry Reporter/Reporter en Colère said...

You'll notice you only answer the issues I bring up that are convenient to you. That's another reason why MSM ignore conspiracy theorists.

I'm not being mean to you, I'm just trying to explain, from an MSM perspective, why your attacks fall flat on us.

Neo Conservative said...

*
"The Angry Reporter/Reporter en Colère said... I'm not being mean to you"

trust me, unlike the warm, fuzzy sheeple at blogging dippers and liblogs... hurting my feelings is the last thing you have to worry about.

in fact, your last couple of comments have opened up a whole new can of worms... and i'm lovin' it.

*

RJ said...

Sounds like Angry Reporter is not a good reporter at all. Follow the facts, wherever they lead--instead of dismissing information as the work of "bloggers" and "conspiracy theorists."

A good reporter would provenance the information. Ask whether the information provided by bloggers is accurate. Instead, there is the dismissal of the information as the work of "conspiracy theorists."

Sad, but then again, this is why the MSM is getting its @$$ handed to it by bloggers day after day. (cf. Rathergate, Adscam, Abotech, also see Power Line Blog, Michael Yon, Bill Roggio, Steve Janke, to see how good reporting should be done etc.).