Picking the points that fit your narrative

Greg McArthur at the Globe & Mail put together a story on Private Mark Graham, who was killed by fratricide in Afghanistan on September 4th of this year. Pte Graham's death received a good bit of press because he was killed by a USAF A-10 in a horrible, tragic mistake, and because he had run the men's 400m sprint for Canada at the Barcelona Olympics.

Before reading it, I hoped that the G&M would take this opportunity to give ordinary Canadians a glimpse into what makes a soldier tick. No such luck, I'm afraid.

First of all, the story paints a less-than-flattering portrait of Canadian soldiers:

His fellow soldiers were younger men who had given up dead-end jobs in fast-food joints and paper mills to join the lowliest ranks of the military. Pte. Graham had trained alongside men who set world records.

The question is, what was he doing there? [Babbler's highlight]

It goes on to dismiss the idea that service and the intangibles that go along with it could have value to a man who had competed at the highest levels of sport:

When he joined the military, his explanation was that he wanted a new experience. When he died, less than a month after he had been deployed to Afghanistan, the media dutifully repeated that he had wanted to represent his country as more than just an athlete. [Babbler's emphasis]

Apparently Pte Graham, like so many of us, had not led a perfect life.

The facts of that life aren't at issue, but the manner in which they were presented by McArthur is. It's clear to me that he and his editors saw a narrative thread they wanted to pursue, and picked and chose the anecdotes and tidbits that supported that narrative. Here's their thesis:

So when Pte. Graham went to war, he was just doing what he had conditioned himself to do all along: He was running.

Running. The man lays his life down for his country, and McArthur and the Globe & Mail impugn his motives and imply he was a coward - so afraid to deal with civilian life that he joined the military, not as a calling, but as a means of escape.

Fortunately, the folks over at Army.ca - some of whom were injured in the same attack in which Graham was killed - provide a bit of perspective. RHFC_piper was interviewed by McArthur for the article, and wound up a bit troubled by the end result:

I only defend Mr. McArthur because he seemed to be a man of good character. I think this article (and how it has been edited) has done an equal discredit to his character as people perceived it has done to Marks.

But I do agree with your analogy; 'beating a dead horse' works to... But I'd hope that for every negative point about Mark that made it to print, there's atleast one positive that had ended up on the 'cutting room' floor. Like I've said numerouse times; Mark was an outstanding person, no matter what is written or how it is perceived.

Perhaps Piper's right. Perhaps McArthur is a man of good character whose piece was hacked up by editors in order to sell more newsprint. Perhaps I have some oceanfront land in Arizona for sale at a great price.

Kilekaldar put it well:

I'm a soldier. I was in Mark's class in Basic training, and was posted at the same base and I am now in Afghanistan on the same Roto as Mark was. I cannot claim to have known the man well, but I respected him, and thought him to be a fine man and soldier. And that is how I will remember Mark, how I will honor his sacrifice. No amount of cheap, tabloid journalism from the Globe &Mail can tarnish his memory. Yes, he was human and no doubt messed up a great many things, as we all do. But that matters little. For as a soldier I know something that the reporter who wrote this article cannot phantom (sic - fathom?); once you put on the uniform you leave your old life, and start anew, it’s a second chance to do it right. Among soldiers it doesn’t mater what you did as a civilian, what maters is what you do once you signed that doted line. And Mark showed himself to be a great soldier. That this newspaper found it necessary to dig up every dirty little detail of his life and hold it up for the world to see just so they could sell a few more copies, or worse to further some political agenda, is horrendous and makes me sick. There used to be a time when we honored our war dead, now apparently the Globe &Mail disgraces them in public for profit. Shame on you. [Babbler's bold]

But the last word has to go to Mark's family, who have followed the thread on Army.ca:

Thank you all for your thoughts and comments in regards to our son Mark. They have been very healing and very supportive to us. We too thought Mr. McArthur had grasped the issues well and were surprised by some of the comments and underlying beliefs.
yMark was a very well loved son and father. He had his own ways and his own struggles - many not of his own making. He loved his job in the CF and felt he had discovered a niche were he could use his brains and his body in a useful and productive way - something he had never had before - and something that the article did not seem to be able to address.
Again thank you for all your positive comments.

Our blessings to those injured and to their families. To the rest of our new family - the miltitary community - thank you. [Babbler's bold again]

I'm with Blatchford on this: for shame, Globe & Mail. For shame, Greg McArthur. At the very best, you have a shallow understanding of this man and the life he chose in the CF. At the worst, you understand it well enough, but deliberately chose to misrepresent it to your readers. Either way, you've done all of us a disservice by publishing this piece.

For shame.