I support Tony in his assertion that the media has given positive coverage of the military and that we didn't accuse them of bias then.
I suppose that the media must have determined by their usual means that "when someone says (was saying) something that is different, or that goes (went) against the flow, it makes (made ) news automatically." By that definition apparently the media at large and corporately determined that support for the Forces was newsworthy, unusual, unexpected, surprising. It must have stood out.
Why did the media (again corporately) find support for the Forces surprising?
I also accept the assertion that no editor has told her/his reporters to go out and attack the military, that the only requirement is to find difference - presumably to make their paper stand out and sell more copies. i also accept the assertion that "The media, as institutions, have a natural liberal tendency in democracies." which would seem to put them in some dissonance with the authoritarian, hierarchical culture of the military. They must find much about the military remarkable and noteworthy.
Is it too far to stretch to ask whether this very lack of understanding results in more questioning which in turn just strike the persons being interviewed as ill-informed, naive or just plain ignorant? After all "They don't have the benefit of 20 years experience in the police, fire department or the military. They are not trained and experienced lawyers or engineers or anything else. They ask questions, and they get answers."
One of the peculiarities of talking to lawyers, engineers, soldiers and, dare I say, media types, is that they all share a common jargon, short hand that comes from shared experience, common education and common understanding from which all internal discussions flow. The outsider, not being privy to the jargon or the common understanding, inevitably has a choice of taking time to at least learn the jargon of the trade in question or risk being perceived less than favourably. It seems that "time" is a commodity not available to reporters. That must contribute to the observation that "They of course sometimes get it wrong...."
I accept that "Most reporters in Canada are young people trying to do a good job." and like most young people in that situation that means impressing their boss in order to keep their pay-check or potentially advance up the greasy pole. Presumably the fault in producing poorly researched, inaccurate, hastily judged pieces lies with the more experienced editors trying to get "newsworthy" stories on the page. Or perhaps it lies with the publishers that demand the editor create a presentation that is marketable. Or perhaps it lies with the market and its desire for news. One might have thought though there was a difference between facts as news and rumour as news.
In any event, regardless of who is victim here: publisher, editor, reporter - possibly even the person being interviewed, I have to feel sorry for the press (at large and corporately). It must be tremendously trying to go to work each day wanting to do a good job, to get a pay raise and promotion and know that you will never be given the opportunity to get the story right.
I suppose of course the press could hire more soldiers, engineers, lawyers, etc to write about their fields - but perhaps they wouldn't ask so many questions and would be blind to the working assumptions of their colleagues.
Fortunately the press is apparently free of such internal challenges.
