Canadian media are pathetic shills for war

[Bragi]

Looking over the news, I note that yesterday's citizen headline -- "Time to Hit Harder" -- was perilously close to Bush's stupid "Bring "em On" taunt. I also note that today's media theme seems to be why we should accept the mounting death toll in Afhanistan, and why we should not be terribly pissed that the US killed another of our troops, what with air strikes being just so darn hard to do.

Given this, I continue to wonder how long Canadians will be able to withstand the pro-war bleatings being served up by their supine media. The Sun Chain, the CanWest Global chain, the Post and the Globe all support the war. On TV, Global news is just fine with war, and so is most reporting and commentary found on CTV. CBC has self-censored itself because it is now afraid of the blogging right, and doesn't want to rile the government, so it marginalizes anyone who speaks against the war (i.e. anyone whose views reflect majority Canadian opinion!)

So the result is that media overwhelingly and consistently defend the Bush-Harper war in coverage and in commentary, while a majority of Canadians continue to oppose the war. I wonder how long Canadians can/will refuse to dance to the tune being played for us by Canada's pro-war media machine.

- B

[HEyHEY]

1. What's really funny is how wrong you are

But, if you're not sharp enough to notice how many editorials out there are critical of the war AND how much press the anti-war people are getting, then I won't waste my time with you.

[Canadian_moderate]

2. Like Canadians

the various media have differing opinions on Afghanistan.

I think it's horrible how many troops NATO has lost due to "friendly fire". I really wonder what WW1 and WW2 would have been like of the Canadian people would have had access to the media the way we have today. Would have Canadians have supported the slaughter of so many of our soldiers for those two foreign causes? We could arguably say that Canada was not directly threatened.

[Spazito]

3. I can't help but notice you keep trying to bring WWII into this as if

it is a legitimate comparison which, imo, it is not. That position is the position of the bush cabal, the harper faux cons and their supporters. I hope you don't subscribe to their propaganda.

[Canadian_moderate]

4. Legitimate comparison?

In which thread did I state that? I think I clearly said that there is no comparison in the scale of that war.

No, I don't consider myself to be conservative. I am much more liberal on most social issues (such as abortion, gay marriage). I do believe that WW2 may have gone down differently if we had all had access to the media we have today. Just imagine the reactions to the firebombing of Dresden or the 2 nukes dropped on Japan?

I don't condone the killing of civilinas in any war, but I'm not against killing violent insurgents who target Afghan civilians. Try to remember what those freaks did while the were in power. Remember the destruction of those massive ancient Buddhist statues, the beheading of people for crimes against their interpretation of Islam, the stoning of people, the mistreatment of women, etc., etc.?

[Spazito]

5. Do you REALLY think any governing body in Afghanistan is going

to be, in any concrete way, like a "western democracy"? Do you believe they will toss their religious beliefs away and not incorporate them into the laws of their country? Will Afghanistan no longer be an Islamic country? I, for one, believe none of these things.

Our troops are dying for US hegemony, all for the want of a pipeline through Afghanistan, that's the real reason and all the dressing up of the Afghanistan "war" by pretending it is a moral one won't sell either to Canadians or the Afghan people.

[Canadian_moderate]

6. No, not a western democracy

But I would at least hope it would end up being a country where people would have religious freedom, including the right to not have a religion.

If this was only about oil, then I'm surprised that the USA is not putting more effort into the Afghanistan conflict. Russia would certainly have a much greater interest in Afghanistan if that were the case. I think Afghanistan and Al-Qaeda, supported and hosted by the Taliban, were the obvious target after 9/11. Bin Laden lived there, hosted by Mullah Omar, and proudly took responsibility for the 9/11 attacks.

Having very little interest in Afghanistan, GWB turned his focus on Saddam's Iraq, another easy scapegoat with many more strategic interests (and oil). Personally, I never believed that a secularist Iraq under Saddam had anything to do with the Islamic fundamentalist Al-Qaeda movement, but George wanted to avenge his daddy and help out the interests of his big contributors.

Canada is not the only NATO deeply involved in Afghnistan and there are troops of various NATO countries, most of which also opposed the invasion of Iraq. Since Canada supported the war to overthrow the Taliban, I believe we have an obligation to ensure relative staiblity in the aftermath, including military assistance against the Taliban insurgents.

[Bragi]

7. You are quite wrong...

My observation is that the overall tenor of Canadian media is largely uncritical of the war. Pro-war mouthpieces get free and easy coverage, while critics get quite short shrift, if they get any coverage at all.

If you think otherwise, then you aren't following how the mainstream media is covering this war. (Or maybe you have some other axe to grind?)

- B

[tuvor]

8. Perhaps you'd do well to list your sources of information.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MrPrax]

13. I agree...

While you can find token opposition and 'guest' features, the basic narrative is nevered questioned. But it wouldn't be the first time -- similar to Charlottetown Referendum or Free Trade...people you meet are against it and the only pro-arguments were filtred through the media and the people who supported it never actually talked about anything but the 'upside' and 'benefit' or some intangilbe that is usually done with a rhetorical argument.

In other words, country A kills X number of people in Country B to derive some benefit to Country A ...ignore the real benefits to Country A in your propaganda as that would reveal motive, but suggest there is some transfer of those alleged benefits to Country B when you are finished.

Of course they are older Islamic societies and we are western christian societies that are trying to impose our superior values on them and of course if the situation were reversed, then no one in Canada would have a problem seeing the need for resistence and insurgency, but the palatable racist themes of 'Crusade' and the 'white man's burden' seem to keep the Canada from seeing this need in anyone else that might impose our participation in a much lager regional conflict.

Conflicts over the past 50 years have been completely motivated by economic and strategic advantage in the ME --
Why did we overthrow Iran's Mossedeq in the first place? strategic advantage over resource
Why did we supply Saddam in the first place? strategic advantage over resource
Why did we supply the Mujahedeed and AQ in the first place? strategic advantage over resource

Why then would anyone think differently about this latest foray into conquest?

But somehow this latest imperial adventure has the added 'fear' and motivation because they aren't commies this time, they are Muslims and apparently that is a big seller to the poor white tribes in their various little consumer police states.

But specifically -- I had a laugh about a CTV report a month or so ago, just the day that the taliban and a few warlords announced a treaty...the report was trying to make it look like the Canadian/NATO commanders was in a meeting with local tribesmen and elders to 'win' the hearts and minds. They didn't wreck the story by adding the information about the meeting being an announcement and it was NATO that was requested to attend!

Moreover, few here it seem saw the fact that Pakistan has just signed a ceasefire agreement with the various parties including those media types love to all call 'taliban' and Pakistan has said pointblank that the agreement wouldn't include capturing OBL. In fact if anyone had noticed that Pakistan attempts to destroy the Taliban in their OWN country had basically killed more Pakistanis than Americans in Afghanistan and Pakistan has more or less 'cut and run'.

Should be pause for thought given that the Pakistanis are an expereinced army than know the terrain.

But none of this has affected the meta-narrative by the Canadian news services that not only don't have a credible 'reason' to sell anymore (mission creep?), but haven't come to grips with the fact that both Afghan and Pakistani governments are winding down their own offensives and are working for a diplomatic solution -- peaceloving Canada of course is still one-tracked to the NATO under direct American command which doesn't promote anything other than savage genocidal war.

But I think your right...

[Captain Hilts]

19. I think the Star has been appropriately tough. nt

[iverglas]

10. hey hey ... that was productive

What I might have expected from a member of the media was some comment on how the media aren't actually doing their actual job -- which really is not to convey opinion, but to convey facts.

When was the last time any of our print/broadcast media actually presented any facts about what is going on in Afghanistan?

Not Canadian body counts, not Canadian dollars spent, not battles or operations participated in by Canadian forces. What is going on in Afghanistan.

Damned hard for anyone to have an informed opinion about what we ought to be doing when we don't have a clue about the place we're doing it and the circumstances we're doing it in and the effect it's having, etc. and so on.

I'm not particularly interested in the opinion of anyone the media might shove in my face about what we ought to be doing. I want to be in a position to form an opinion of my own.

And I'm just plain gobsmacked at the complete failure of the Cdn media to perform that basic task: REPORT. There just plainly and simply is no reporting happening.

[Bragi]

11. I agree entirely

What we mostly get in the news are bodycounts, ramp ceremonies, and bellicose statements by political and military spokespeople working for the neocons.

The only significant break from this has been (mostly-negative) coverage of Layton's call to get out of the ridiculous hell hole we are pointlessly warring in by February (and I give him full credit for taking this unambiguous position.)

And the reason he gets covered, of course, is not because his opinions are valid, or that they reflect those of the vast majority of Canadians (which they do). He gets covered simply he is an official party leader, and therefore media have some obligation to cover whatever he has say.

As for a list of who in the media shows pro-war bias, my answer is that other than Eric Margolis and (to some extent) Jeffrey Simpson, I can't think of any Canadian media who have adopted a tone critical of this neocon misadventure. (I'm sure there are a few more, but who are they?)

What I find particularly pathetic is that every body-bag story now comes complete with formulaic quotes from political and military mouthpieces about a) how war is hell, and b) how every new bodybag just goes to strengthen our resolve to send more troops out to die.

Fuck, last night they even had a clip of a DND Chaplain piously spouting this propaganda. I say fuck him and the god he rode in on.

Similarly enraging are those neocons who blather about how we are in Afghanistan to promote the rights of women, and who say this as though they actually cared about the rights of women.

How many times have we heard Canadian media challenge that assertion by noting a) that neocons don't generally seem to be at the forefront of the women's rights movement anywhere, and b) that we got into Afghanistan principally so that US troops could continue to war in Iraq, and look at what's happened to women's rights in Iraq now that the religious fundamentalists there own the streets?

(For an inside glimpse of what's happening to women's rightgs in Iraq, check out the Baghdad Burning blog at http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/ )

Personally, I don't think I've ever seen or heard a Canadian media representative make these obvious rejoinders to the constant bleatings from the war party about women's right.

The whole mess gets more outrageous every day. I truly hope Canadians will continue to think on their own and continue to oppose this war, but I gotta wonder how long this can happen under the barrage of pro-war propaganda they are now subjected to.

Given this, I think antiwar activists in Canada need to vocally and visibly start to hammer at the bullshit media coverage we are getting so that those Canadians who hold the majority opinion don't start to think, based on the skewed coverage they see, that they are out of step with their fellow Canadians on this key issue.

Fact is, antiwar Canadians aren't out of step with the majory, we are the majority. It is the Canadian government, and Canadian media, that have abandoned our national values in favour of Bushian neocon crap, and this really needs to be made clear, particularly as this mess worsens (which it will before its over).

What we really need is an equivalant to Media Matters Inc that covers Canadian media, but this may be difficult without a george Soros to finance it.

At minimum though, it would be good if Canadian bloggers made every effort now to dissect and expose the daily misreporting and neocon propaganda that is reflected in our media. Doing this will at least help antiwar Canadians understand that we are not alone, we are the majority opinion in this country.

- B

[tuvor]

12. You condemn "Canadian media" as a whole...

but I have trouble believing you have the time or the inclination to absorb and analyze all of it every day for a period long enough to arrive at your conclusion.

For that reason alone, your original statement ("Canadian media are pathetic shills for war") is really quite absurd.

That's why I suggested earlier that you might do well to name your sources of information.

[Bragi]

14. Sources...

I read three newspapers every day, watch most major TV newscasts, and spend a lot of time reading Canadian news online. Those are my sources.

On balance, I find that none of them have done a decent job of telling us what is actually happening in Afghanistan, and most act as willing stenographers for military and political spokespeople.

I'm sorry if you can't actually detect that our media have become part of the propaganda machine, but on reflection, I guess that's how effective propaganda works.

- B

[iverglas]

15. let me just say

that I agree entirely.

I find the body-bag reporting particulary disturbing. When the whole Iraq adventure started, I predicted Vietnam all over again -- not in the "it's a quagmire" sense, the unwinnable war -- but in the sense that once again, the US would trample the world under its heel, suffer a few cuts and bruises, retire to lick its little scratches ... and weep and wail and gnash its teeth over them ... and learn not a single MORAL LESSON from the whole affair.

The US failed, utterly and completely and spectacularly, to learn a fucking thing from Vietnam. That war ended not because it was WRONG, it was evil and rotten in every way, but because people sitting in front of their teevees couldn't stand the pain of seeing their boys come home in bags. Yeah, My Lai may have made a few bleeding hearts weep, but that wasn't what did the trick. It was costing them too much -- not costing them what actually mattered and that neither they nor the rest of the world could afford to have them lose any more of, their humanity, which it was indeed costing them; but their dollars and their fair-haired children.

So they gazed at their navels for a few years, and started all over again. I mean, not that they actually ever stopped; their imperialist project went on apace without them having to pay much for it for a while, while they were rebuilding their white picket fences and staring at too many points of light ...

I don't want Canada to descend into navel-gazing. If we pull out of Afghanistan, I don't want it to be because of *our* body bags. I want our television screens and newspaper pages to be showing us what we need to see in order to make whatever decision has to be made, based on all of the facts and not on the sancimonious brainless shit spouted by that preacher ... and the god he rode in on, and thank you for that; I caught him too. ;)

And yes, the media are completely failing in their job. They are turning our agora into a replica of the US's, where all we get are warring opinions (even if one side is represented only in a token way), and treating our hugely important public policy decisions as if the issue were what should be done with the latest lowlife on Jerry Springer: we all need to have an opinion, and the quickest and easiest way to get one is to have someone else bake it up for us and serve it to us on a platter, and we pick chocolate or vanilla based on whatever our personal tastes or prejudices are.

It's the CBC I am most disgusted with. This is its JOB. And all weekend we got crocodile mcmoron every 15 on the 15 ...

[Bragi]

20. Really, really well said... /nt

[tuvor]

16. Oh, spare me your sarcasm.

If you insist on speaking in vague generalities and using them to publicly make a broad conclusion about the whole of Canadian media, I'm going to call you on it.

I'm not saying you're not right. Maybe you are. But your "evidence" isn't convincing at all.

[HEyHEY]

17. There is plenty of reporting happening

It just gets lost in the day to day shuffle of all the other news we are bombarded with.

[iverglas]

18. well, I'll ask what our colleague asked

although maybe a tad more politely.

Can you offer some examples of what you're talking about?

I watch several hours of Newsworld / CTV Newsnet on the weekend. And I'm not seeing it. Granted, I hardly ever look at Global News, but somehow I doubt I'm missing much.

I also read all the Saturday papers (well, three) (Saturday's about all I have time for; takes me most of the week), and watch some more Newsworld/Newsnet in the a.m. every day, and some of the main stuff most nights.

What resources do Cdn media have in Afghanistan? Of what there are, what is not firmly tied to the Cdn military there? Where should I be looking to see what is going on in Afghanistan from some perspective other than Canada's / the Cdn military's -- about something other than what the Cdn military is doing / having done to it? Something about Afghanistan?

[HEyHEY]

22. Well, there's a huge special on Afghanistan in the Vancouver Sun

Today.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3382491587979249836

warning, don't expect it to be good, as it is the Vancouver Sun.
But that's what popped into my head.

Check out the recorder too.
http://www.recorder.ca/cp/National/national.html

[iverglas]

23. good thing I had no expectations!

This:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3382491587979249836
was a David Haselhoff video. What am I doing wrong? Or have you just accidentally exposed your secret love of David Haselhoff?? ;)

The recorder site had:

Bodies of five fallen Canadian soldiers return home from Afghanistan
Ignatieff says Canada belongs in Afghanistan because of 'moral promise'
Warnings about tough Afghan mission were there a year ago; did anyone listen?
Taliban use escape route to resupply amid Canadian-led siege of Panjwaii area
Colleagues at Manitoba military base pay tribute to fallen soldier

-- and that pretty much demonstrates exactly what I was saying: body bags and views, and not much news except as it relates to the Cdn involvement.

The first page of search results at canada.com for "Afghanistan" gives this:

Canada 'right' to be in Afghanistan, says Bill Clinton
... Canada 'right' to be in Afghanistan, says Bill Clinton. View Larger Image. Former
US president Bill Clinton. ... "Afghanistan is tough," he added. ...

Canada's lack of choppers in Afghanistan heightens peril for ...
... Canada's lack of choppers in Afghanistan heightens peril for troops. View
Larger Image. An RAF Chinook helicopter carrying British ...

Defence chief committed to long stay in Afghanistan
... Defence chief committed to long stay in Afghanistan. View ... May. There are
currently 2,200 Canadian soldiers deployed to Afghanistan. ...

Canadian convoy struck in Afghanistan
... Canadian convoy struck in Afghanistan. ... The battle for control of Highway One is key
as the route is a vital economic trade corridor in southern Afghanistan. ...

Death toll in Afghanistan
... Afghanistan] Death toll in Afghanistan. ... Timothy Wilson of Grande Prairie, Alta.,
succumbed to injuries suffered in the LAV III crash on March 2 in Afghanistan. ...

Four Canadians killed during bloody day in Afghanistan
... Four Canadians killed during bloody day in Afghanistan. ...

Reservist killed in Afghanistan
... Reservist killed in Afghanistan. Firefight outside Kandahar claims 17th Canadian. ...
The last Canadian to be killed in Afghanistan was Captain Nichola Goddard. ...

NATO aircraft crashes in Afghanistan
... NATO aircraft crashes in Afghanistan. 14 British troops killed. ...

Deadly day in Afghanistan
... Deadly day in Afghanistan. Four Canadians killed, 10 injured. ... Fast last saw Ingram
in May, when he was training for his Afghanistan mission. ...

Death toll in Afghanistan
Death toll in Afghanistan. ... Twenty-seven Canadian soldiers and one diplomat have been
killed since the Canadian military deployed to Afghanistan in early 2002. ...

-- again, demonstrating just exactly what I was saying. There is *nothing* there about *Afghanistan*.

If you can give a link to the Vancouver Sun material you were talking about, I'd be interested.

[HEyHEY]

24. HAHA

I can't believe I did that. The link is probably gone now.. I'll see.

[Spazito]

21. My take on it is....

CTV/Global/National Post aka Canwest/Global ARE right-wing shills, CBC is neutral which I appreciate, take a look at the documentaries they have produced on Iraq, the bush cabal, etc. I tend to look at the editorials to see which way the "land lies" as to bias when it comes to newspapers and they are all over the map, some outright shills for the right-wing, some middle of the road and some left. If one checks multiple sources, one can usually find the truth somewhere amid them, imo.