Inside baseball
Well, the mini-poll is complete, and the previous winners of the Ross Munro Media Award have spoken. As of today, my understanding is that three of the five winners are pulling for Matthew Fisher, while one thinks David Pugliese should win, and another would give the nod to Les Perreaux. Rosie DiManno and Graeme Smith were also mentioned favourably by some.
I hadn't mentioned Fisher in my original post because, to be honest, I wasn't particularly familiar with his work. According to one of his proponents, he has quite the impressive curriculum vitae:
I'm not sure the American experience should count toward this nomination, seeing as the award is meant "to recognize, annually, one Canadian journalist who has made a significant and outstanding contribution to the general public's understanding of issues that relate to Canada's defence and security." But Fisher's accomplishments reporting on the CF are impressive enough without the stints embedding with the Yanks.
On the other hand, Les Perreaux is getting attention from more than just one of his peers. I know he's well-liked and respected by the folks in uniform, as much for the stories he chooses to tell as for how he tells them. He also has the advantage of immediacy, since he earned his reputation mostly during Operation Medusa almost a year ago.
I suspect that this race will come down to the two of them. So what's to choose from between the two scribes?
Well, I'd say that Fisher's resumé is the more impressive. But Fisher is, by many accounts, a difficult individual: egotistical and prickly are two of the terms used to describe him to me, by different people. He is apparently brilliant at tailoring his demeanour to the audience he has - formal and sophisticated interviewing the general, but cussing and commiserating with the troops. His physical stature (apparently he's a somewhat portly individual) has reportedly been a sticking point with some military personnel in the past, who worried that he would be a burden on an embed assignment. He has won over many uniformed doubters over the years, but he's getting no younger, and apparently no more agile either. It remains to be seen if his best war reporting has already been done and put to print.
Perreaux, as I mentioned, is in his combat-reporter prime. His work as an embedded correspondent last fall is arguably the best reporting kinetic ops by a Canadian journalist in more than fifty years. There's nothing like being shot at to give a war correspondent instant credibility in the eyes of the troops, his peers, and his audience. And yet he has done fantastic pieces that have nothing to do with physical courage.
Both Fisher and Perreaux are known by the troops for their discretion in the back of a LAV, and by their fellow journalists for their tenacity with a story they believe needs to be told.
Who should win? If I had to pick one, I'd probably go with Fisher, now that I know more about him. Of course, he probably wouldn't be happy with the reason I'd put him above Perreaux at this point: it's time for the "Lifetime Achievement Award." I'd suggest that Perreaux will have more opportunities to be recognized for combat correspondence, whereas I really wonder if Fisher has already had his last real kick at that can. Who knows, though? I've been wrong before...
The one thing I do know, however, is that either of these journalists would be a worthy recipient of the 2007 Ross Munro Media Award.
I hadn't mentioned Fisher in my original post because, to be honest, I wasn't particularly familiar with his work. According to one of his proponents, he has quite the impressive curriculum vitae:
Over the course of his 33-year career in journalism, he has reported from 14 different war zones and worked alongside Canadian troops in Africa, the Middle East, Central Asia, the Balkans and Continental Europe. He’s been to every Canadian UN and NATO mission of the last 20 years. He’s been to Afghanistan 11 times, to Iraq seven times, and the Balkans literally dozens of times. He was embedded with a frontline U.S. Marine armoured unit throughout the Iraq War, during which his gripping reports of life and combat appeared daily in Canadian newspapers. He also covered the first Gulf War. Now based in the Middle East, his compelling and insightful stories on Arab-Israeli strife as well as Canada's role in Afghanistan and the Golan Heights have been delivered with authority and regularity for five years now.
I'm not sure the American experience should count toward this nomination, seeing as the award is meant "to recognize, annually, one Canadian journalist who has made a significant and outstanding contribution to the general public's understanding of issues that relate to Canada's defence and security." But Fisher's accomplishments reporting on the CF are impressive enough without the stints embedding with the Yanks.
On the other hand, Les Perreaux is getting attention from more than just one of his peers. I know he's well-liked and respected by the folks in uniform, as much for the stories he chooses to tell as for how he tells them. He also has the advantage of immediacy, since he earned his reputation mostly during Operation Medusa almost a year ago.
I suspect that this race will come down to the two of them. So what's to choose from between the two scribes?
Well, I'd say that Fisher's resumé is the more impressive. But Fisher is, by many accounts, a difficult individual: egotistical and prickly are two of the terms used to describe him to me, by different people. He is apparently brilliant at tailoring his demeanour to the audience he has - formal and sophisticated interviewing the general, but cussing and commiserating with the troops. His physical stature (apparently he's a somewhat portly individual) has reportedly been a sticking point with some military personnel in the past, who worried that he would be a burden on an embed assignment. He has won over many uniformed doubters over the years, but he's getting no younger, and apparently no more agile either. It remains to be seen if his best war reporting has already been done and put to print.
Perreaux, as I mentioned, is in his combat-reporter prime. His work as an embedded correspondent last fall is arguably the best reporting kinetic ops by a Canadian journalist in more than fifty years. There's nothing like being shot at to give a war correspondent instant credibility in the eyes of the troops, his peers, and his audience. And yet he has done fantastic pieces that have nothing to do with physical courage.
Both Fisher and Perreaux are known by the troops for their discretion in the back of a LAV, and by their fellow journalists for their tenacity with a story they believe needs to be told.
Who should win? If I had to pick one, I'd probably go with Fisher, now that I know more about him. Of course, he probably wouldn't be happy with the reason I'd put him above Perreaux at this point: it's time for the "Lifetime Achievement Award." I'd suggest that Perreaux will have more opportunities to be recognized for combat correspondence, whereas I really wonder if Fisher has already had his last real kick at that can. Who knows, though? I've been wrong before...
The one thing I do know, however, is that either of these journalists would be a worthy recipient of the 2007 Ross Munro Media Award.
posted by Babbling Brooks at 4:12 p.m.
1 Comments:
ABP.
Mark
Ottawa
Post a Comment
<< Home