Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"

[MarkOttawa]

Audio of interview with Scott Taylor on CFRA, Ottawa, this morning.  Generally refutes the doom-sayers.
http://www.cfra.com/chum_audio/Scott_Taylor_july12.mp3

Mark
Ottawa

 

[GAP]

Slain soldier was prepared, father says
Family denies that reservist slain in Afghanistan was misled
GLORIA GALLOWAY  From Wednesday's Globe and Mail  12 July 2006
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060712.wxafghansoll12/BNStory/National/home

OTTAWA — The grieving father of a young army reservist killed this week in Afghanistan said his son was proud of the job he was doing and was well trained for the harsh realities Canadian soldiers face in the dusty, war-ravaged country More on Link

I couldn't resist commenting on the article after the last number of days' dialogue..

I want to thank Cpl. Boneca's father, in this time of grief, to take the time and effort to correct the mass hysteria going on in the media initiated by the former girlfriend and her father. It was not their place to comment so negatively and extensively about things they knew little about, and violated the privacy of communications that had been sent in confidence. What in the world were they thinking, or were they. They can't  have done anything but hurt the immediate family of Cpl. Boneca through their selfish and thoughtless actions and words. Shame on them. If they want attention, go wave a flag, it's the least they can do for Cpl. Boneca.

 

[tonykeene]

This is exactly what we were talking about yesterday.  Someone has come forward and made a clear statement, and the reporters have covered it fully.  I predict that columnists and editorial writers will now speak positively of this also.
What bias or hidden agenda are we going to accuse them of having now?

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

You obviously didn't read my post, so I'll flash it up again:

The media hasn't reported "important news", they've been searching for controversy and leaping upon it like a pack of ravenous dogs when it appears.

There's no - as in zero - attempt to investigate the background to a story.  Instead we get sensationalism, spurred on by a rather dubious source - the girlfriend's father.  Where is the attempt to determine what the selection and training process for Reserve personnel is?  Where is the explanation as to how Reservists are employed in theatre?  Where is the story outlining how soldiers are fed in the field and how they're supplied?  Where are the caveats that the immediate family has not been interviewed?  Surely that is "important news".  How is the publishing of private e-mails - NOT provided by the family - newsworthy?

Moreover, where are our PAFF people to sort questions like this out?

I don't believe that the media has a political agenda.  Instead, they're after sensationalism and controversy in order to pursue commercial and careerist objectives.  They have behaved abysmally towards fallen soldiers' families in the past (recently here in Edmonton) and invariably get both detail and context completely wrong.  More often than not, the media fails to conduct even the most basic of research before publishing a story - to the point where we still see ranks and units misidentified and operations misconstrued.  This is worse than poor reporting, it is selective attention to detail designed to generate controversy.  The media presence in Kandahar isn't called the "death watch" for nothing...

They ARE biased - towards their own agendas - and have demonstrated that bias time and time again.

That's the bias I'm accusing them of having.

 

[GAP]

This is exactly what we were talking about yesterday.  Someone has come forward and made a clear statement, and the reporters have covered it fully.  I predict that columnists and editorial writers will now speak positively of this also.
What bias or hidden agenda are we going to accuse them of having now?

Granted, the media will now tone down the sensationalism, but, I would bet dollars to donuts that each and every story, in an effort to be fair of course, will continue to highlight the controversy originally written. As in yesterday's articles, they provided the clear statement, then, slide right on into the controversial comments. Read the story, and you tell me what impression you are left with. Not that Cpl Bonica was a good soldier, well trained, etc., but that he was agitating to get out of the mission. That is a bias, and if it can be maintained and blown up, it sells

 

[tonykeene]

They will of course refer back to it, because the contrast in statements is now the story.  Read Lorrie Goldstein's column in today's Toronto SUN: it raises several of the issues we have been discussing here.

 

[Blakey]

Gotta love Christie Blatchford

http://www.theglobeandmail.com//servlet/story/LAC.20060712.AFGHAN12/TPStory/National/columnists

Major Strickland has visited most if not all of the Canadian wounded at the base hospital here, and the two universal questions he hears, he said, are, "How are my buddies?" and "When can I get back out there?"

NB. My vote would be going to her for that honorary/memberships thing...

 

[392]

Particularly enjoyed the ending of her story:

Look at what he accomplished: Barely 21, he conquered his fear, he put on his boots and his kit and he was heading up those stairs, clearing that mud-walled compound in that lush grape field on another cloudless, dangerous Afghanistan day, when he was shot. That's bloody answering the bell, by any measure.

 

[George Wallace]

They will of course refer back to it, because the contrast in statements is now the story.  Read Lorrie Goldstein's column in today's Toronto SUN: it raises several of the issues we have been discussing here.

Any link?

 

[military granny]

http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Goldstein_Lorrie/2006/07/12/1680303.html

 

[392]

I don't particularly like his ending though:

Finally, there are larger issues here. Do young people signing up for our military today fully understand what the changed role of our armed forces from being "peacekeepers" to peacemakers means for them? Will we in the media, wherever we stand on Afghanistan, examine these issues in a way that respects our fallen soldiers and all who serve?

I hope so. But I wouldn't count on it.

Maybe I've been asleep for my last 13 years in the CF, but when was our primary role ever peacekeeping?

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Hang on their Keener,....Where are the screamin' headlines?  Why does CBC Radio this morning still say although "this goes directly against what other family members and friends are saying? Will they still try and get pictures using a boom truck?

...and now I will put out there the real reason I believe the girlfiends Father is wrong. [I wrote this when I first heard about the e-mails but trashed it as it was as inapropriate at the time as the media vultures were]

July 10, 2006, 12:22:43
Quote,
Boneca emailed friends last week: "It's so hot here now you can barely handle it. I know you're all watching the news and know what's going on here, but don't worry, I'll be okay."

Doesn't sound like the things "girlfriends" Daddy is saying, maybe Daddy wants some "new money" for his daughter?

Yes, I can be callous but I have seen lots worse.....

 

[George Wallace]

I guess Lorrie Goldstein is from an alternate Universe.  I joined the Canadian Forces many years ago to be a Soldier.  Peacekeeping wasn't even a thought in my subconscious.  We were at war defending the Free World from the Communist Hordes.  'Peacemaking' wasn't even a word back then.  These sound like the ramblings of someone who was never ever a member of a Sports Team, an outdoors organization like Scouts or Guides, or travelled to some of the far flung corners of the world.  Truly a secluded and protected life he must have led.

 

[Kirkhill]

I don't particularly like his ending though:

Maybe I've been asleep for my last 13 years in the CF, but when was our primary role ever peacekeeping?

392, I don't think the comment was aimed so much at serving members as young members of the public that have been fed a steady diet of "boy-scoutism".  They have not been given much opportunity to understand the killing-and-dying aspect of soldiering.

 

[392]

Hmmmmm.....sounds like a good explanation, but I still don't get how young people signing up get misled into believing we're here for peacekeeping? I mean, all one has to do is read the general job descriptions at the CFRC to realize that peacekeeping isn't the primary focus of the CF. Take the Infantry for example, To close with and destroy the enemy. Doesn't sound too peacekeeping-ish to me.

I think the media has been partaking in said diet of "boy-scoutism" a little too much. I think for the most part, they have chosen to forget that the job of any military is fightin' and dyin'. Of course, there are many reporters / journalists who realize what our primary role is and don't cloud that reality with blue skies and green fields....

 

[Signalman150]

Tony Keene,

I don't want to pee on yr parade square, but here's a couple of important indicators for you that MIGHT help you understand some of the frustration being vented on is board.  I note that yr profile lists you as a Maj/public affairs, but I'm not sure it that means yr a res. major who works for the media as a civilian or if that's your full time mil occupation.

Now, to the gristle: when the story broke relating to the comments by Mr. DeCorte, his daughter, and Cpl Boneca's roomie, there were multiple pieces all over the Yahoo Canada website, both CP and CBC.  They examined, trumpeted, and reaffirmed the opinions of three people not even directly RELATED to Cpl Boneca, and used headlines which essentially suggested the Canadian Government had failed its soldiers and LIED to reservists.  That WAS NOT fact-based reporting Tony, it was hearsay.

I will further note, that the headlines for these pieces were on the Yahoo Canada homepage, (i.e. the front page) in a constant succession of new sensational headlines, such as "Military brushes aside accusations that fallen reservist was ill-trained".

Ah, but then Cpl Boneca's father speaks up, refuting what has been previously said about his son.  THAT never made the Yahoo Canada homepage.  Indeed the "headline" winds up in the sidebar of their secondary and tertiary stories, and is not there today at all, (notwithstanding the fact it wasn't posted until late in the day yesterday).  The sensationalist crap, such as "Reservist was misled by Military", gets front page headlines and stays up all day Tuesday.  The story from the boys' father--THE REAL STORY--gets buried on a virtual backpage and is only up a few hours.

That's absolute crap.

It's not just Yahoo.  The Edmonton Journal had a leader on it's front page yesterday, directing the reader to page 3 where more than a half page was devoted to DeCorte's hearsay.  This morning there was a quarter-page article on page 5 with the father's statement.  Tony, please don't try and tell me that's balanced reporting.  It most certainly is not.  It is an attempt by the media to vilify the Canadian Forces, of which you are a part.

The press sensationalized something that wasn't factually based, and tried to smear the CF generally. In doing so it--at least temporarily--called into question the loyalty, commitment and bravery of Cpl Ton Boneca.  More importantly their negligence and shoddy reporting added to the stress and agony of the family Cpl Boneca left behind.  

 

[MarkOttawa]

Signalman150:

+1.

On CBC Newsworld at 11 the host, Nancy Wilson, was interviewing a reporter at Trenton for the arrival.  First question: "Explain the controversy, blah, blah, blah..."  You know, just being fair and balanced.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Signalman150]

Just sent this to Lorrie Goldstein a couple of minutes ago.  It won't make a difference, but at least he now knows w/out a shadow of a doubt what the msn of the CF is, and has been for as long as I've been around, (50 yrs)

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *


lorrie.goldstein@tor.sunpub.com

Your column "Death of a Soldier" dated 12 July 06

Lorrie,

I am a retired army reserve sergeant with twenty years service. Please allow me to comment on the last couple of lines of the above noted article.

I joined the Canadian Force (Militia) in 1975. At that time Canada was involved in several major peacekeeping missions including the Golan, and Cyprus. When I joined the first thing I learned was the mission of the Canadian Armed Forces.  Lorrie, it was NOT "to maintain the peace between warring or hostile factions".  It was:

To close with, and destroy the enemy.

I was told that, and I remembered it from day one.  No one who joins the reserve has any doubt about the mission of the CF, and no illusions about peacekeeping vs. peacemaking. To this day that remains the mission of the Canadian Forces.

Peacekeeping is just another task in the CF, just like sandbagging floodwaters in Winnipeg, or fighting forest fires in BC--both very civil pursuits carried out by a large body of trained, physically fit, and disciplined young men and women. But back in 1975, just as now, the Canadian army's mission was NEVER peacekeeping, or sandbagging, or firefighting.  It was war fighting. Please do what you can as a journalist to put this silly and pointless myth of the CF as peacekeepers to bed.  We did peacekeeping when that was what our government ordered us to do.  We do warfighting when the government calls us to that.

Yours truly,
TWL

 

[GAP]

I also sent a little note:

As much as I appreciated the article, I have to question the last paragraph.

" Do young people signing up for our military today fully understand what the changed role of our armed forces from being "peacekeepers" to peacemakers means for them? Will we in the media, wherever we stand on Afghanistan, examine these issues in a way that respects our fallen soldiers and all who serve?
I hope so. But I wouldn't count on it. "

The Canadian Forces were never PeaceKeepers. They were, are and always will be a Combat Ready Infantry Force. That they do Peace Keeping missions is all well and good, but you only do those missions as a Combat Infantryman. Things do go South in a hurry, and they had better be prepared to defend themselves....did Lorrie Goldstein think they were armed with water guns?

 

[annon223]

I agree with Tony K. 

The media are only reporting what they were told by family, friends and relatives - there were many, many quotes and even some on-camera interviews given to various outlets.  Some of these statements may seem negative to the crowd here, but the media were just doing their job - reporting the story.  When a friend or relative quotes directly to the media that a soldier was "misled", or "hated" it there - it's going to make headlines, period. 

Perhaps you should set your collective sights on them for making such attention-grabbing statements in the first place?