Who's got the story on Afghanistan?
Last night, I attended a panel discussion entitled "The Media, the Military and the Pollsters: Who's got the story on Afghanistan?" at the University of Toronto, presented by The Canadian Journalism Foundation. Thanks to milnewstbay for the heads-up. The moderator was Paul Knox, chair of the Ryerson University School of Journalism. Joining him on stage were panelists LGen Andrew Leslie, Chief of the Land Staff, Lisa LaFlamme, CTV television journalist, and John Wright, senior vice-president of Ipsos-Reid.
Reporting on such a complex situation as Afghanistan has always reminded me of the story of the five blind men who bump into an elephant and wonder what it is. The one who grasps the trunk says it's a snake, the one poked by a tusk declares it a spear, the one feeling along the ribs believes it's a wall, the one that ends up wrapped around a leg calls it a tree, and the one at the back has no idea what it is, but complains to the rest of them that whatever it is, it smells like crap. Each one sees only a part, and so misses the whole. The lesson, of course, is that only from a composite of all the points of view can some sort of accurate picture be drawn - in this case by a combination of military expertise, journalistic inquisitiveness, and pollster data.
In short, I was hoping for a thoughful and on-point discussion of what is a truly important topic. Well, the panelists were certainly thoughtful enough, although not always on-point. The audience, which one of the presenters was careful to point out included John Raulston Saul and numbered about fifty, was less than useful on either count.
Each panelist spoke for a bit, and then the moderator went to the floor for questions. There wasn't much of a thread overall, so I'll just touch on the highpoints from each panelist, in the order they spoke.
LGen Leslie was up first. I've seen him speak before, at the Albany Club in April of this year, and was surprised to find him covering off many of the same points as he did to a completely different audience eight months earlier when the situation on the ground was substantially different. He really hammered home the idea that it's not the CF's job to explain why we're in Afghanistan, but rather the public's task to know why, through our elected representatives, we sent him and his soldiers there - the idea being that he simply goes where he's told. While Leslie's assertion undoubtedly holds some truth, John Wright shot a big hole in that idea a little later when he pointed out that 42% of the popular vote in a national election wins a party a huge majority, with which it could send troops into harm's way even if the other 58% disagreed with the mission.
Besides, if Leslie simply goes where he's told to risk life and limb, and if we the public send him based solely upon what we learn from the press, then he should have a bit more than a passing interest in making sure the press, and through them the public, get it right.
Leslie spoke at great length about the situation in Afghanistan itself, often in minute detail, and quite eloquently. He's obviously extremely intelligent and well-informed, as you would expect. He's also extremely verbose, as he himself acknowledged at one point. And while I enjoyed hearing him speak once again, I was worried that his style might rub the predominantly media-employed crowd the wrong way. You see, the good general has thought about the issues surrounding the mission in such depth that he tends to lecture, and I was concerned that suspicious journalists might not appreciate his professorial manner, with all the implied baggage about power relationships and relative levels of expertise. Talking down to members of the media, almost scolding them - whether you intend to or not - is not the best idea. I needn't have troubled myself, though: although he lectured them, they lectured him right back - more about that later.
After the CLS, Lisa LaFlamme thankfully kept her remarks relatively short. She is openly horrified by the living conditions in Afghanistan, and she supports Canadian efforts to improve those conditions. She said that she personally spent about three weeks with the PRT in Kandahar, and remains puzzled that the Canadian public seems not to understand the good work being done on the development side, since she and others have done numerous stories about it. She noted that while most Iraqis she has spoken with want the Americans out of their country, most Afghans she knows want the Canadians to stay - anecdotal, but an important observation. She pointed out in response to a somewhat strident audience questioner parroting the same old NGO line that while the NGO's are active in the safer areas, they pull right out when the shooting starts, so if the CF doesn't provide humanitarian assistance, who will? She also brought the fact that embedded media had been removed from Camp Nathan Smith to KAF, and that development stories had suffered as a result, to the attention of LGen Leslie. He made an unfavourable note of that - I expect some CENTCOM PAffO will get a sharp call this morning on exactly that point.
I must say that I almost started to applaud, though, when Lisa stated unreservedly that "the infantry are the best PR the military has." She was plainly impressed by her time in their company. And I was impressed that she was so open in her support of them and their mission, given both her profession and the audience she had for the night. BZ to LaFlamme.
John Wright was the least relevant of the panelists, to my way of thinking, since he couldn't enlighten us about any truth in Afghanistan, only what Canadians generally believe to be true when asked in large enough numbers. But he was certainly sharp in what he did contribute. He clarified that when polls are conducted by his organization, the questions are composed by those responsible for defending them to the public - which means he often performs that task himself. He made us aware of his most recent poll results on the topic of discussion, which can be found here (ht:MR), and which assert that 54% of Canadians think media coverage of the mission is fair, while 33% think the media skew their coverage against the mission and 14% think the media slant exactly the opposite way. Wright pointed out that Atlantic Canada and the prairies were generally supportive of the mission, BC and Quebec were generally not supportive, and Ontario split right down the middle. He believes that if NATO doesn't show its resolve and other nations don't help us out in the south of the country, opinion will turn against shouldering the burden in Kandahar any longer. On that last point, he could be right.
After the set pieces, the moderator asked for questions. One would expect that that task would be a simple one for a bunch of journalists, but that wasn't the case. Quite frankly, he should have reiterated that he was looking for actual honest-to-goodness inquiries, rather than partially-informed bloviating and grandstanding. What a spectacle: the questioners said as much as the panelists they were questioning! One woman went off about poppy eradication. Another decided to excoriate the general about blurring the line between soldiers and aid workers. The real head-shaker, though, was a batshit-crazy old coot who quoted Kipling and told the general the mission was a fool's errand, plain and simple, and doomed to bloody failure:
Nice. Classy, that little piece of defeatist psy-ops, spat out at a man whose job description requires a profound belief he's doing right. What an ass.
I had a few questions I would have liked to ask myself, but I wasn't called upon. If I had been, here's what I would have liked to know:
[*At the reception after the panel discussion was done, I bought LaFlamme a drink (since she was buttonholed two steps out of the theatre, and looked parched), and asked her what she thought of CF Public Affairs - whether they were doing a good job and what they could do better. She sort of shrugged and brushed the question off with a comment about how they were good at arranging transportation and such - like she hadn't even considered them as a factor in helping her get the story of Afghanistan out to her audience. That tells me there's still work to be done by the CF on their information management.
On a more positive note, she mistook me for a soldier rather than a journalist, which I took as a generous compliment, especially given my overly-sturdy frame these days.]
All in all, while I wish the conversation had stayed closer to the topic at hand, I found the evening a worthwhile one. Kudos to the Foundation for choosing such a fascinating topic, for assembling such a knowledgeable panel, for opening the event to the public, and for keeping it free of charge.
Although with a cash bar, can you still really call it free?
Reporting on such a complex situation as Afghanistan has always reminded me of the story of the five blind men who bump into an elephant and wonder what it is. The one who grasps the trunk says it's a snake, the one poked by a tusk declares it a spear, the one feeling along the ribs believes it's a wall, the one that ends up wrapped around a leg calls it a tree, and the one at the back has no idea what it is, but complains to the rest of them that whatever it is, it smells like crap. Each one sees only a part, and so misses the whole. The lesson, of course, is that only from a composite of all the points of view can some sort of accurate picture be drawn - in this case by a combination of military expertise, journalistic inquisitiveness, and pollster data.
In short, I was hoping for a thoughful and on-point discussion of what is a truly important topic. Well, the panelists were certainly thoughtful enough, although not always on-point. The audience, which one of the presenters was careful to point out included John Raulston Saul and numbered about fifty, was less than useful on either count.
Each panelist spoke for a bit, and then the moderator went to the floor for questions. There wasn't much of a thread overall, so I'll just touch on the highpoints from each panelist, in the order they spoke.
LGen Leslie was up first. I've seen him speak before, at the Albany Club in April of this year, and was surprised to find him covering off many of the same points as he did to a completely different audience eight months earlier when the situation on the ground was substantially different. He really hammered home the idea that it's not the CF's job to explain why we're in Afghanistan, but rather the public's task to know why, through our elected representatives, we sent him and his soldiers there - the idea being that he simply goes where he's told. While Leslie's assertion undoubtedly holds some truth, John Wright shot a big hole in that idea a little later when he pointed out that 42% of the popular vote in a national election wins a party a huge majority, with which it could send troops into harm's way even if the other 58% disagreed with the mission.
Besides, if Leslie simply goes where he's told to risk life and limb, and if we the public send him based solely upon what we learn from the press, then he should have a bit more than a passing interest in making sure the press, and through them the public, get it right.
Leslie spoke at great length about the situation in Afghanistan itself, often in minute detail, and quite eloquently. He's obviously extremely intelligent and well-informed, as you would expect. He's also extremely verbose, as he himself acknowledged at one point. And while I enjoyed hearing him speak once again, I was worried that his style might rub the predominantly media-employed crowd the wrong way. You see, the good general has thought about the issues surrounding the mission in such depth that he tends to lecture, and I was concerned that suspicious journalists might not appreciate his professorial manner, with all the implied baggage about power relationships and relative levels of expertise. Talking down to members of the media, almost scolding them - whether you intend to or not - is not the best idea. I needn't have troubled myself, though: although he lectured them, they lectured him right back - more about that later.
After the CLS, Lisa LaFlamme thankfully kept her remarks relatively short. She is openly horrified by the living conditions in Afghanistan, and she supports Canadian efforts to improve those conditions. She said that she personally spent about three weeks with the PRT in Kandahar, and remains puzzled that the Canadian public seems not to understand the good work being done on the development side, since she and others have done numerous stories about it. She noted that while most Iraqis she has spoken with want the Americans out of their country, most Afghans she knows want the Canadians to stay - anecdotal, but an important observation. She pointed out in response to a somewhat strident audience questioner parroting the same old NGO line that while the NGO's are active in the safer areas, they pull right out when the shooting starts, so if the CF doesn't provide humanitarian assistance, who will? She also brought the fact that embedded media had been removed from Camp Nathan Smith to KAF, and that development stories had suffered as a result, to the attention of LGen Leslie. He made an unfavourable note of that - I expect some CENTCOM PAffO will get a sharp call this morning on exactly that point.
I must say that I almost started to applaud, though, when Lisa stated unreservedly that "the infantry are the best PR the military has." She was plainly impressed by her time in their company. And I was impressed that she was so open in her support of them and their mission, given both her profession and the audience she had for the night. BZ to LaFlamme.
John Wright was the least relevant of the panelists, to my way of thinking, since he couldn't enlighten us about any truth in Afghanistan, only what Canadians generally believe to be true when asked in large enough numbers. But he was certainly sharp in what he did contribute. He clarified that when polls are conducted by his organization, the questions are composed by those responsible for defending them to the public - which means he often performs that task himself. He made us aware of his most recent poll results on the topic of discussion, which can be found here (ht:MR), and which assert that 54% of Canadians think media coverage of the mission is fair, while 33% think the media skew their coverage against the mission and 14% think the media slant exactly the opposite way. Wright pointed out that Atlantic Canada and the prairies were generally supportive of the mission, BC and Quebec were generally not supportive, and Ontario split right down the middle. He believes that if NATO doesn't show its resolve and other nations don't help us out in the south of the country, opinion will turn against shouldering the burden in Kandahar any longer. On that last point, he could be right.
After the set pieces, the moderator asked for questions. One would expect that that task would be a simple one for a bunch of journalists, but that wasn't the case. Quite frankly, he should have reiterated that he was looking for actual honest-to-goodness inquiries, rather than partially-informed bloviating and grandstanding. What a spectacle: the questioners said as much as the panelists they were questioning! One woman went off about poppy eradication. Another decided to excoriate the general about blurring the line between soldiers and aid workers. The real head-shaker, though, was a batshit-crazy old coot who quoted Kipling and told the general the mission was a fool's errand, plain and simple, and doomed to bloody failure:
"When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains, and the women come out to cut up what remains, jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains and go to your gawd like a soldier."
Nice. Classy, that little piece of defeatist psy-ops, spat out at a man whose job description requires a profound belief he's doing right. What an ass.
I had a few questions I would have liked to ask myself, but I wasn't called upon. If I had been, here's what I would have liked to know:
- I wasn't able to scribble down the exact text of the question John Wright uses to determine public support for the mission in Afghanistan - no shorthand in these stubby fingers - but as I heard it, it made mention of troops fighting for security but no mention of development. I would have liked to find out how Wright decided to use that particular formulation, and whether he's tracked results with different questions that emphasize different facets of Canada's overall strategy (diplomacy, defence, and development).
- I also would have liked to know from Mr. Wright why he thought asking Canadians - whose entire body of knowledge of the Afghan mission comes directly from press coverage - about whether that same press coverage is fair, balanced, and accurate is a useful question. How exactly would they know if it wasn't fair, balanced, and accurate?
- I would have asked LGen Leslie for his thoughts on the evolving role of CF Public Affairs as an interface with the media and public, and a catalyst for shaping public opinion. In fact, I would have asked him for his opinion specifically on the recommendations made by Capt (N) Chris Henderson on expanding and refining the role of the PAffO in managing an increasingly challenging information battle. Then I would have asked him why he didn't think it would be useful to bring a single PAffO with him to an event that dealt specifically with their area of interest and expertise.* An opportunity missed there, I think.
- The CLS made it explicitly clear that the CF was not neutral when it came to Afghanistan: they are on the side of the Afghan government, and are unalterably loyal to the Canadian government of the day, as they should and must be. I would have liked to ask Paul Knox, as a significant J-school player, whether he thought the Canadian media were neutral about this mission, and more importantly, whether that's even what they should strive for. In all honesty, I sometimes wonder if the concept of 'enemy' even registers for a professional journalist - no snark intended, just a serious question given the struggle our nation faces.
[*At the reception after the panel discussion was done, I bought LaFlamme a drink (since she was buttonholed two steps out of the theatre, and looked parched), and asked her what she thought of CF Public Affairs - whether they were doing a good job and what they could do better. She sort of shrugged and brushed the question off with a comment about how they were good at arranging transportation and such - like she hadn't even considered them as a factor in helping her get the story of Afghanistan out to her audience. That tells me there's still work to be done by the CF on their information management.
On a more positive note, she mistook me for a soldier rather than a journalist, which I took as a generous compliment, especially given my overly-sturdy frame these days.]
All in all, while I wish the conversation had stayed closer to the topic at hand, I found the evening a worthwhile one. Kudos to the Foundation for choosing such a fascinating topic, for assembling such a knowledgeable panel, for opening the event to the public, and for keeping it free of charge.
Although with a cash bar, can you still really call it free?
posted by Babbling Brooks at 7:55 a.m.
4 Comments:
A cash bar for journalists? Good god, what were they thinking.
Excellent and interesting post.
Thanks for such a great report on this panel. As someone whom you have mentioned in your post, I thought I might offer up some additional information about how the CF is working with the media, if folks are interested.
I wrote the article that you have linked to during a brief visit to Kandahar in March of this year. At the time, I witnessed the creation of a whole new reality for working with media in an operational theatre and it helped inform what I wrote. It is also the case that the situation has evolved dramatically as the operations became increasingly complex and dangerous, and the debate on the home front raged (as it continues to do today.) Thus, the linked article is sadly dated and the discussion needs to be added to by someone with their boots on the ground and in close proximity to both the embedded media and the soldiers.
Thanks for the comment, "Anonymous" (Given the way you've already identified yourself in your comment, the pretense of hidden identity seems a bit awkward, I must admit).
I've heard that the CF is looking at tweaking their embed program, but I don't know how. Or if they're looking seriously at alternatives to a steady diet of mainstream media to propagate their message (self-publishing, bloggers, podcasts, etc). Have PAffO's been given more leeway as you suggested, or are they still overly constrained?
I'm afraid I see the CF fighting a holding pattern on the information war at best right now, and more likely a gradually losing one. Someone needs to make the brass at NDHQ and throughout the CF understand that you need to fight the information war with the same ferocity and professionalism with which you would fight a physical one: doctrine, strategy, tactics, execution, etc - they all apply. Right now, I see the slow-moving CF being flanked in the news at almost every turn.
If you respond, please drop me a line at the e-mail address linked to in the sidebar (damian DOT brooks AT gmail DOT com) so I don't miss it - this post is archived and not under active monitoring.
Post a Comment
<< Home