Picking nits
Sometimes it's the little things that grate.
Like in a CanWest article today, where the unnamed author makes the following statement:
Let's all be clear here: the tanks are in theatre at least partly because they provide more precise firepower than fast air and artillery. So it's not "even after," but rather "in order to meet this requirement" that the tanks are there. There's no juxtaposition between erring on the side of caution and using tanks, as the writer seems to suggest.
It may be counterintuitive to a civilian that tanks are being used precisely because of the need to be more discriminating, precise, and careful, but I thought that's what journalists were supposed to do: inform the public of things they don't already know.
The Globe & Mail's Daniel Leblanc has also landed in my doghouse, not only because he writes an article that appears critical of a much-needed purchase - the CH-47 Chinook heavy-lift helicopter - but because he is the latest journalist to foist a particularly pernicious misrepresentation of a simple date on the Canadian public:
The mission isn't scheduled to end in February of 2009, any more than your cellular phone service is scheduled to end when your two year contract is up, or than your office will close its doors when the lease comes due later this year. That date represents an "at least" date: we'll be there at least that long.
It's a minimum commitment, not a maximum. But the effect of characterizing it as an end-date is to set up the conditions for accusing the Government of Canada of failure if it chooses to renew that commitment for another fixed term. It's a subtle and devious tactic, and I'm publicly denouncing it as such in the hopes that fewer Canadians will be drawn in by the manipulative wording.
This may seem picky, but when poll results (pdf) show a Canadian electorate so upside down regarding military affairs that almost 55% of them are willing to use casualties as justification for withdrawal from the Afghan mission, regardless of whether we're making progress with those sacrifices or not, I'm not about to let even the smallest, pickiest points pass without challenge.
Like in a CanWest article today, where the unnamed author makes the following statement:
The transformation of the conflict into a guerrilla war where combatants are often one with the civilians, however, has meant a major curb on Canadian firepower, even after several tanks were flown to their aid.
Soldiers are employing a "fraction" of the artillery and air strikes, and erring on the side of caution if they are not absolutely sure a potential target is a Taliban fighter.
Let's all be clear here: the tanks are in theatre at least partly because they provide more precise firepower than fast air and artillery. So it's not "even after," but rather "in order to meet this requirement" that the tanks are there. There's no juxtaposition between erring on the side of caution and using tanks, as the writer seems to suggest.
It may be counterintuitive to a civilian that tanks are being used precisely because of the need to be more discriminating, precise, and careful, but I thought that's what journalists were supposed to do: inform the public of things they don't already know.
The Globe & Mail's Daniel Leblanc has also landed in my doghouse, not only because he writes an article that appears critical of a much-needed purchase - the CH-47 Chinook heavy-lift helicopter - but because he is the latest journalist to foist a particularly pernicious misrepresentation of a simple date on the Canadian public:
Canada's new transport helicopters will not be battle ready until well into 2011, more than two years after the country's military mission in Afghanistan is scheduled to end and five years after the purchase was announced.
The mission isn't scheduled to end in February of 2009, any more than your cellular phone service is scheduled to end when your two year contract is up, or than your office will close its doors when the lease comes due later this year. That date represents an "at least" date: we'll be there at least that long.
It's a minimum commitment, not a maximum. But the effect of characterizing it as an end-date is to set up the conditions for accusing the Government of Canada of failure if it chooses to renew that commitment for another fixed term. It's a subtle and devious tactic, and I'm publicly denouncing it as such in the hopes that fewer Canadians will be drawn in by the manipulative wording.
This may seem picky, but when poll results (pdf) show a Canadian electorate so upside down regarding military affairs that almost 55% of them are willing to use casualties as justification for withdrawal from the Afghan mission, regardless of whether we're making progress with those sacrifices or not, I'm not about to let even the smallest, pickiest points pass without challenge.
posted by Babbling Brooks at 8:21 p.m.
1 Comments:
On top of which: WHO THE HELL CARES WHERE THE TROOPS WILL BE SERVING AS LONG AS THEY GET THE DAMN EQUIPMENT THEY NEED??
Is there anywhere on the planet that we can send them that heavy lift helos won't be of some use?
Post a Comment
<< Home