JTF2 & AFG (merged)

[garb811]

Cudmore:

Nice fishing expedition.  Anyone who has first hand knowledge about these investigations and/or allegations is not going to say anything on a public forum.

Edit to add from the article:

Retired colonel Michel Drapeau, who is now a lawyer, said the military should not be asked to judge itself. He said an inspector general is needed "desperately."

That person should be named under the National Defence Act, be responsible to Parliament, have sufficient powers, and "basically, the authority also to go and investigate," he said.


Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/12/01/canada-jtf2-investigation.html#ixzz16uFLfio2

Great, the usual suspect trotting out the usual "solution".  There are already adequate mechanisms in place to investigate allegations of this nature without adding in another office that is going to cost tens of millions of dollars and then feel the need to "investigate" anything and everything in an attempt to justify its bloated staff and budget.

 

[cudmore]

Bulletmagnet:  re JTF2 requested the BOI:  if true, interesting.  I'll follow up with the puzzle palace tomorrow.

recceguy: re christmas bonuses:  wish we got "em!

recceguy: re "If the story doesn't exist, we'll invent it." -- that's awesome!

puckchaser:  re Cudmore, you are also incorrect in your posting here by linking Sandtrap 1 and Sandtrap 2 as both ongoing investigations
i made a mistake in my ctrl c, ctrl p.  mea culpa.  To be clear, Sandtrap 1 is done.  no charges laid. Sandrap 2 (the american piece) is ongong.  that's this one ""The allegations included claims that members of JTF2 witnessed American soldiers killing an unarmed man."

george wallace:  re: "CBC was upstaged by Julian Assange"  --- that's awesome!

garb 811:  re: fishing expedition.    im actually not here for that purpose.

I mentioned this in an earlier post -- and i'll say it again for clarity:

(Me: earlier)
"After lurking here for years and seeing some of my stuff, and other people's stuff, pop up in these forums, I thought I'd just start being more proactive about it.
"I'm here as a participant, not a quote grabber.
"It's good to hear/see reaction to the work we do.  And you folks here are often the key stakeholders in a lot of the stories I've written. Seeing people's reaction is helpful."
(...)
"Long story short:  this seems to be the place to discuss military news, and that's what I often cover. And, really, what's reporting about if its not about starting a conversation? "

best,
j

 

[desert_rat]

I'll wait for the McKenna Bros. "documentary "  :

...cut to...Canadian soldiers, carrying LOADED weapons!!..in BROAD DAYLIGHT"!!! Lol

 

[GAP]

The blood and guts stories aside, how come media outlets, while talking about the military, do not explain the reasoning behind a lot of the actions the public do not understand?

The media mention something they think they understand, refer to  it in stories without explanation, so the public, who are generally not in the know, misinterpret the direction the author was trying to explain.....it's never corrected either.

Is there a word count you have to adhere to where explanations are superfluous to the main theme of the story?

 

[Edward Campbell]

Bulletmagnet:  re JTF2 requested the BOI:  if true, interesting.  I'll follow up with the puzzle palace tomorrow.

recceguy: re christmas bonuses:  wish we got "em!

recceguy: re "If the story doesn't exist, we'll invent it." -- that's awesome!

puckchaser:  re Cudmore, you are also incorrect in your posting here by linking Sandtrap 1 and Sandtrap 2 as both ongoing investigations
i made a mistake in my ctrl c, ctrl p.  mea culpa.  To be clear, Sandtrap 1 is done.  no charges laid. Sandrap 2 (the american piece) is ongong.  that's this one ""The allegations included claims that members of JTF2 witnessed American soldiers killing an unarmed man."

george wallace:  re: "CBC was upstaged by Julian Assange"  --- that's awesome!

garb 811:  re: fishing expedition.    im actually not here for that purpose.

I mentioned this in an earlier post -- and i'll say it again for clarity:

(Me: earlier)
"After lurking here for years and seeing some of my stuff, and other people's stuff, pop up in these forums, I thought I'd just start being more proactive about it.
"I'm here as a participant, not a quote grabber.
"It's good to hear/see reaction to the work we do.  And you folks here are often the key stakeholders in a lot of the stories I've written. Seeing people's reaction is helpful."
(...)
"Long story short:  this seems to be the place to discuss military news, and that's what I often cover. And, really, what's reporting about if its not about starting a conversation? "

best,
j

As far as I am concerned you are welcome here. You are not the first journalist to have participated in Army.ca and I expect you will not be the last. Some (many?) military members here mistrust the media; it's hard to blame them, really - you folks are not famous for accuracy or insight. But, perhaps you are trying to change that.

I wouldn't expect too much about JTF2. We are a bit like Taoists here: those who know don't say and those who say don't know.

 

[GAP]

I agree with ER...you ARE welcome here. There are fantastic resources to tap into for understanding, and these guys ARE the experts....

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I agree with the previous. I am not against cudmore. I'm not here to shoot the messanger. I just detest the bloodsucking Mother Corp 8)

"communist broadcasting corporation"  that's awesome!

"If the story doesn't exist, we'll invent it." -- that's awesome!

"CBC was upstaged by Julian Assange"  --- that's awesome!

Nope. This is awesome!
http://www.suntvnews.ca/feature/sun-news-receives-crtc%e2%80%99s-approval-for-a-broadcasting-licence/

 

[The Bread Guy]

James C.  If this is really what you want to do ....

what's reporting about if its not about starting a conversation?

.... if you're looking for voices that are NOT "the usual suspects", there's a load o' expertise to tap here.  What has some people here who aren't happy with media unhappy is that such conversations rarely lead to more than just "the usual suspects" being heard, sometimes out of date and/or out of context.

Enjoy!

 

[garb811]

I am not against any journalist coming to this site and participating, in fact, like most here, I wish more journalists would join and participate, even if it is simply to gain background understanding of the organization and events it is they are reporting on. 

Having said that, by specifically bolding the allegations shifted the emphasis of your post directly to the specific allegations, indicating the allegations are what you are most interested in seeing discussed in this instance, rather than the calls for oversight, the ability of the Military Police to function as an "independent" investigative agency, the requirement for an Inspector Generals office etc.  Hence my statement of your post being a fishing expedition.

...
shared here, from my perspective, for conversation purposes:


There are calls for public oversight of an elite military unit amid allegations that Canadian soldiers were involved in improper killings of Afghans.

Federal politicians and a former member of the military are making the calls in light of a series of closed-door investigations in Ottawa that have been looking into the explosive claims involving the covert unit, Joint Task Force 2.

The allegations included claims that members of JTF2 witnessed American soldiers killing an unarmed man, and, in a separate incident, that a member of JTF2 killed a man who was surrendering.

Earlier this year, CBC News reported that the first probe - named Sandtrap - looked into the allegations that a Canadian was involved in the 2006 shooting death of an Afghan who had his hands up in the act of surrender. That probe ended without any charges.

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/12/01/canada-jtf2-investigation.html#ixzz16tsF4VN5

Since you are on here, I've always been curious as to what, if any, remuneration the "experts" that are quoted receive. 

 

[cudmore]

re experts:  In news coverage, nothing -- not anywhere.  or, not anywhere in Canada that i know of.
but, there are some talking head types, who make regular appearances (i 'm thinking political panelists on political shows) who are compensated.  maybe we ougthtta think about disclosing that...
anyway, about the emphasis:  that is a good question. there have been several good questions here  (GAP's among them, and i've promised him a response).
I bolded what i did in my post, because i thought the web version of our story highlighted a response or reaction to the new details, as opposed to the details themselves.
I thought that in this crowd, the more important bits would not be the reaction that other people have to X, but rather X.
what's interesting is that we did this story on radio (me), News Net (me), the National (Diana Swain) and online (not sure who wrote it up).  Each one of us had a different take.
But it was too difficult for me to post the radio version here, so i scooped up the web copy and highlighted the new information.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

what's interesting is that we did this story on radio (me), News Net (me), the National (Diana Swain) and online (not sure who wrote it up).  Each one of us had a different take.
But it was too difficult for me to post the radio version here, so i scooped up the web copy and highlighted the new information.

Actually, that bit is news to me.  I had previously thought that there was a reporter (or at least, a lead reporter) on a particular story at the CBC and he/she wrote it for all of the various CBC mediums.

I wasn't aware the new readers (like Ms Swain- btw, I've liked her work since she was in Winnipeg) actually wrote their own stuff.  I had just assumed they just read what was handed to them by editors/producers.

 

[PuckChaser]

what's interesting is that we did this story on radio (me), News Net (me), the National (Diana Swain) and online (not sure who wrote it up).  Each one of us had a different take.
But it was too difficult for me to post the radio version here, so i scooped up the web copy and highlighted the new information.

Maybe you could explain to us service types why this is news worthy? More specifically, why JTF2 is being branded with alleged wrongdoings? Reading the story, JTF2 is actually in the right, and came forward after having witnessed an alleged incident involving American Forces. Why is it that there seems to be a slant that JTF2 has done something wrong here? Sandtrap 2 isn't investigating them, they're questioning people who were there as witnesses. That's like saying someone who witnessed a murder has allegedly done something wrong because they're being questioned by police after reporting the crime.

 

[Armymedic]

I am curious as to why, in stories like this, are the MPs who are being interviewed not from the "official opposition", and are from the other 2 parties whose members have never had to deal with the issues of operational secrecy as the government?

 

[Kat Stevens]

Just saw the teaser for CBC's The National; "Allegations of war crimes and wrong doing levelled against Canada's super secretive JTF2".  yup, well balanced and fair, in the finest traditions of CBC "news".

 

[57Chevy]

Canada probing possible U.S. misconduct

MONTREAL - The Canadian military is investigating allegations that an elite U.S. military unit unlawfully killed an unarmed man in Afghanistan, officials said Wednesday.

"These allegations are being investigated by the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service," Canadian Defense Minister Peter MacKay's spokesman Jay Paxton told AFP, declining to comment further until charges are officially announced.

Public television CBC reported that a former Canadian soldier has said he witnessed U.S. Special Operations Forces kill a man who was wounded and unarmed in January 2008.

The investigations have been taking place behind closed doors, prompting calls from lawmakers for public oversight.

An earlier probe called Sand Trap examined claims that a Canadian member of Canada's covert Joint Task Force 2 (JTF2) unit was involved in the 2006 lethal shooting of an Afghan who had his hands up in the air as he was surrendering. The investigation ended without charges.

As part of the new probe — Sand Trap Two — the Canadian military is also examining how commanders responded to the allegations that members of JTF2 witnessed the killing by their U.S. peers.

Operations by Canada's special forces are largely kept secret by Ottawa, which has, however, revealed that they are involved in operations targeting al-Qaida and Taliban leaders.

The two investigations cover a period from 2005 to 2008, when JTF2 forces were working alongside U.S. Special Forces based out of Kandahar, where 2,800 Canadian soldiers are engaged against the Taliban.
LINK
                                        (Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act)

 

[GAP]

The investigations have been taking place behind closed doors, prompting calls from lawmakers for public oversight.

The last thing Canadians or anybody needs is a bunch of media hungry politicians playing with people's lives so they can get a 10 second clip on the evening news.........

 

[The Bread Guy]

what's interesting is that we did this story on radio (me), News Net (me), the National (Diana Swain) and online (not sure who wrote it up).  Each one of us had a different take.

Heard your version on the radio, and (I stand to be corrected - it may have been before my coffee) thought I heard Diana Swain's version on radio, too.

Curious about process:  So, do you all (radio reporter, TV reporter, web reporter/writer) sit at a table/cubicle/workstation and confer at all on something like this, or is it "hey, folks, here's the ATIP documents - come 'n get 'em!" sort of thing?

Watch out - one day, a consultant's going to come in and say, "hey, why not have one person do all three?"  It sounds like that's already done on some stories, but I wouldn't be surprised if you get more pressure to "converge".  And I speak as someone who, in a past life, was myself "converged".

 

[Edward Campbell]

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/12/01/canada-jtf2-investigation.html

I just listened to the CBC Radio report which I, personally, found to be little more than a disconnected mish-mash of rumours, gossip and speculation, laced with commentary from that well known 'expert' Scott Taylor and a proposal for oversight* by a BQ politico. The last is a bit rich.

The most humours part was a rather breathless report that a soldier dived naked into a swimming pool (in Cyprus?) in front of Muslim women; oh the shame! oh the horror! When can I expect to hear a report about overstressed journalists acting like young people (with a bit too much to drink) whilst on vacation? Oh yeah, never ...  :

I repeat: if (probably when) JTF2 members are suspected to be in breach of good order and discipline, I am confident that such reports will be investigated and that, as and when appropriate, disciplinary and/or administrative action will be taken. I suspect that, given the nature of selection and training, breaches of discipline are less common in JTF2 than in other units filled with CF members working under great stress. Further, given the nature of JTF2, I do not expect to hear too much about its problems and the CF's solutions to them. I do not believe the 'public' has a right to know and I am 100% certain that journalists have neither a duty nor a right to pry into official secrets.

I also repeat that James Cudmore is welcome here, by me anyway, and I hope he will stay and give us some insights into the business of news reporting and, perhaps, gain some insights into how we think.


----------
* See my recent comments on oversight.


Edit: grammar  :-[

 

[George Wallace]

The investigations have been taking place behind closed doors, prompting calls from lawmakers for public oversight.

The last thing Canadians or anybody needs is a bunch of media hungry politicians playing with people's lives so they can get a 10 second clip on the evening news.........

As has been pointed out before, there are some workings of government, Defence and Security that the public have no need, nor right to know.  How security forces conduct their operations are not "required public knowledge" and have no place in the public domain. 

I was going to post that it should be required reading for journalists, working professionally, teaching or studying to become a journalist, to read the Policy on Government Security.  Perhaps it would also be a good requirement for them to read the National Defence Security Policy and the National Defence Security Instructions as well.  There is no need for the public to know the minutest details of what security forces are doing to protect their safety.  This is where these media reports are looking like something out of WikiLeaks.

Like MJP, ERC and others here, I think it is good that Mr. Cudmore has dropped in to join the discussion, but we all must be cognisant that he is by profession a Reporter, and as such everything is "on the record".  There is no such thing as "off the record".

 

[cudmore]

GAP
about this:

The blood and guts stories aside, how come media outlets, while talking about the military, do not explain the reasoning behind a lot of the actions the public do not understand?

The media mention something they think they understand, refer to  it in stories without explanation, so the public, who are generally not in the know, misinterpret the direction the author was trying to explain.....it's never corrected either.

Is there a word count you have to adhere to where explanations are superfluous to the main theme of the story?

short answer is yes, there is a word count.
In TV a news piece is generally less than 2 minutes. same is true for Radio. That includes room for no more than 360 words.  If there is sound, or raw video in the piece, than the number of words gets fewer.  if people pause, or use ums or ahs , in their clips, than the word count goes down again.
This is not really an excuse for lack of context, but it is often the reason why context is missing.
When i worked in the newspaper biz, a good strong lead story would typically run to about 1000 words.  The main story on an inside page was often about 800.  the smaller stories inside were around 4-500.  So, you can see that newspapers have more room for things like context and explanation.
But this too is changing.  the globe's redesign recently has shrunk the size of the newspaper's news hole.  that means, shorter stories,  which means less context.
The web, however, seems to be a different place:  stories for the web can theoretically be LONG.  But they're not.  the web people tell you that readership on stories declines if you have to click through to a second page.  also, people don't really like to scroll down a whole lot in order to read more of the story.  as a result, web stories seem to hit the 4-500 word mark as well.
This post – not including your quoted text – is 269 words.
now, none of this explains why we don't try harder to add context, so you make a good point.