Dishonesty in Journalism, Graduate School Division

Canadian "gotcha" journalism at its worst: David Akin of CTV typifies Canadian "reporters" by putting political spin on a defence story whilst not mentioning facts crucial to the matter (and at least some of which he full well knows).

As a key checkpoint approaches for a multi-billion dollar contract to buy new military planes, new questions are being raised about the suitability of the Canadian defence department's preferred choice to win that contract, the Lockheed Martin C-130J Hercules...

Now, some of Lockheed's competitors are trying to knock holes in the C-130Js suitability...

There is in fact only one conceivable competitor, the Airbus A400M which will not even fly, at the unlikely earliest, for over another year and is several years away from entering service. Writing "some of Lockheed's competitors" misleadingly makes the average reader think there are several possible alternatives to the C-130J--which is simply untrue--and so to infer that something really funny must be going on.

They [competitors] note, for example, that the C-130J was recently dropped from a competition the U.S. military has underway for a new purchase of short-haul cargo planes.

"It seems incredible to me that we're looking at planes that other nations, like the Americans, have rejected," said Dawn Black, the NDP defence critic.

The U.S. army dropped the 130J from its latest competition citing concerns that it did not meet certain technical specifications the U.S. Army required. The U.S. Air Force has several C-130Js in active service, including on combat missions. Lockheed Martin has filed an official protest with the U.S. government and wants back in the Army competition...

This is a competition for the "Joint Cargo Aircraft" that the US Army wants for fairly short-range missions with smaller loads in intra-theatre lift (e.g. within Iraq or Afstan). The aircraft are to be bought for both the Army and the Air National Guard. Lockheed Martin pitched the C-130J but the Army recently ruled it out of the competition, for two real reasons: it is too big for the Army's needs, and the Army feared that C-130Js would be used by the Air Force for its purposes, not the Army's.

Mr Akin writes "The U.S. Air Force has several C-130Js in active service...", implying limited interest in the aircraft. That is far from the whole truth, and for some odd reason non-US customers of the plane are not noted.

Over 180 C-130J and C-130J-30 aircraft have been ordered and over 121 delivered. Orders are: US Air Force, Air National Guard, Marine Corps and Coastguard (89 x C-130J and C-130J-30, 20 x KC-130J tankers), UK (ten x C-130J, 15 x C-130J-30, all delivered), Italian Air Force (12 x C-130J, ten x C-130J-30 all delivered), Royal Australian Air Force (12 x C-130J), Kuwaiti Air Force (four x C-130J-30) and Danish Air Force (three x C-130J-30, all delivered, plus one ordered in July 2004).

In April 2004, the US Marine Corps formally accepted the first KC-130J tanker / transport into service. The aircraft was first deployed in combat in April 2005 in Iraq.

And quoting Dipper Dawn on technical defence matters with a straight keyboard would be hilarious if it were not so duplicitous. Moreover, given the figures listed just above, surely a real reporter would have clarified Ms Black's assertion that "...we're looking at planes that other nations, like the Americans, have rejected..." But a little bit of economy with the truth can go a long way in spinning a story.

Back at Airbus:

Airbus says it would still be able to deliver new planes to Canada just as fast as Lockheed will deliver new C-130Js [and I have some nice land cheap in Florida for you - MC]. The Canadian contract stipulates that the first plane must be delivered within three years of the contract being signed.

Industry and government officials expect the contract to be signed sometime in the fall of 2007, which means the new planes will go into service some time in 2010.

"We hope the Canadian government will consider our plane as well," said Anne Healey of EADS Canada. "Let there be a competition. Let the best plane win."..

Mr Akin fails to mention that, given all the turmoil at Airbus, there is every reason to think the A400M will not meet [see Update at link] its production, testing and delivery schedules (especially as it will have an all-new engine and as Airbus has never built a turboprop military transport before). Which would leave the Canadian Air Force almost right out of tactical tranports since much of our existing Herc fleet will be in no shape to continue flying by the time the A400M actually could be delivered. Utterly dishonest journalism; Mr Akin is well aware of the A400M's problems as I messaged him about them.

Mr Akin, having failed to report objectively on the C-130J/A400M question then starts slinging his mud:

...before he became Canada's top soldier, Hillier was on the staff of General Patrick O'Donnell. O'Donnell retired to head up a consultancy, CFN Consultants, and is now the registered lobbyist for Lockheed Martin. The firm Hill and Knowlton is the registered lobbyist for Airbus. It's chief executive is Michael Coates, who worked on the last two Conservative election campaigns, including coaching Prime Minister Harper for the leaders' debates. Gordon O'Connor, before entering politics, worked as a lobbyist at Hill and Knowlton and one of his clients was Airbus...

Oh my God! More skullduggery from lobbyists! Quel scandale possible! This in not a political story, it is a story about military requirements and the ability of two manufacturers to meet them. But that simple reality does not suit Mr Akins' sensational purposes.

For some real lobbying, see the first part of this post, already linked to above; a story that Mr Akin has not explored, why I cannot imagine.

By the way, the version on CTV news was even worse. The J sure is a good-looking plane though. And I loved the shot of an A400M fuselage under construction.

A final point: last fall the Liberals were planning to fast-track the purchase of C-130Js--the aircraft the Air Force wants--and the Conservative opposition were stupidly calling "foul" then. Why did Mr Aikin not bring that up in his piece? There simply is no real story here, other than what one can concoct.

Update: A Cannonball Press report, "New planes for Air Force: Critics take aim at media and politicians".