Misrepresenting Hillier
CTV is reporting Hillier's remarks to the CDA today with these opening words:
While the Toronto Star is reporting as follows:
Well, that's a pretty significant difference, isn't it? I mean, the CTV piece makes it seem like Hillier is sticking his nose way, WAY into what is purely a political decision: whether the mission continues or not. That would be an awfully big faux pas for a very experienced and media-saavy CDS like Rick Hillier.
John Ivision in the National Post lends credence to the idea that the CTV report isn't representative of what Hillier said:
Now, maybe CTV got it right and the other media outlets got it wrong. But I'd suggest that the evidence sure doesn't point that way. If anyone has a transcript of the General's actual remarks, feel free to drop them into my e-mail in-box, and I'll be sure to straighten this out one way or another.
But, assuming CTV (and the Globe & Mail, citing a Canadian Press source) screwed up on this one, how much do you want to bet they post a prompt correction and apology?
Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
Update: Why is this important? Well, read the comments at the Globe & Mail if you have the stomach for it. Here's a small sampling:
If he's telling parliamentarians how they should vote on the Afghan resolution, then he is indeed badly out of line. If he's telling our elected representatives through the media that they need to extend the Afghan mission, then he truly has overstepped the important limits to his mandate as CDS.
But I don't think that's what he said. More on this as some of my calls and e-mails get answered.
Upperdate: It's as I thought. From someone in a position to know what Hillier actually said: he didn't tell parliamentarians what to do about the mission. What he tried to get across was the idea that, whatever parliament decides to do about continuing the mission, all our elected representatives - regardless of party affiliation - express their support for the troops in the field:
CTV, the Globe & Mail, and the Canadian Press owe both the general and the public a retraction and apology.
Upperdiddydate, or whatever comes next: Well, it's not a retraction or an apology. In fact, those courageous journalists at CTV and the G&M make no mention of it whatsoever on their sites, but the online articles have been changed to more accurately reflect Hillier's remarks.
From the current CTV article:
Not quite what they were saying originally, is it?
From the 5:28 p.m. revision at CTV:
I should send a crate of water to the good folks at CTVglobemedia, to help them wash the crow down.
Uppestdate (for now): The weasels at CTV weren't even honest enough to publish a comment I left on the article in question. I fail to see how it lacks relevance, or is worthy of omission given all the rest of the pap they published as "reader feedback." I didn't save a copy of it, since I assumed it would show up in due course, but it was very much akin to this comment I left at the G&M site, but without the G&M details:
So much for transparency in what CTV reports. If this had been in print or on air, it would have merited a retraction. But because it's "only" electronic, they can pretend they never screwed it up in the first place? Even though thousands of readers were misinformed and will never notice that they've been duped by sloppy journalism?
Unethical much?
Hillier urges Ottawa to extend Afghanistan mission
Updated Fri. Feb. 22 2008 11:57 AM ET
CTV.ca News Staff
Parliament should "overwhelmingly" vote to extend Canada's mission in Afghanistan or face an opportunistic enemy that will strike at perceived weakness, the country's top soldier said Friday.
While the Toronto Star is reporting as follows:
Support our soldiers, Hillier tells MPs
Feb 22, 2008 10:58 AM
Allan Woods
Ottawa Bureau
OTTAWA--Canada's top soldier says all Members of Parliament should pass a motion expressing their support for Canadian troops if the Afghan mission is extended past 2009.
Well, that's a pretty significant difference, isn't it? I mean, the CTV piece makes it seem like Hillier is sticking his nose way, WAY into what is purely a political decision: whether the mission continues or not. That would be an awfully big faux pas for a very experienced and media-saavy CDS like Rick Hillier.
John Ivision in the National Post lends credence to the idea that the CTV report isn't representative of what Hillier said:
General Hillier was agnostic on the mission’s end date of 2011.
“It is neither good not bad. We execute the mission the government of Canada gives us,” he said.
Now, maybe CTV got it right and the other media outlets got it wrong. But I'd suggest that the evidence sure doesn't point that way. If anyone has a transcript of the General's actual remarks, feel free to drop them into my e-mail in-box, and I'll be sure to straighten this out one way or another.
But, assuming CTV (and the Globe & Mail, citing a Canadian Press source) screwed up on this one, how much do you want to bet they post a prompt correction and apology?
Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
Update: Why is this important? Well, read the comments at the Globe & Mail if you have the stomach for it. Here's a small sampling:
I respect Hillier, but he should probably refrain from telling our parliament what to do.
***
This man has once again badly overstepped the appropriate limits of his role.
***
Hillier, shut your mouth, let Parliament decide what action will be taken, and follow your orders.
***
Once again we have the Chief of the Defence Staff telling the Parliament of Canada what it should be doing.
Parliament tells the Chief of the Defence Staff what to do.
If Mr. Hillier cannot fathom that, then he should be tendering his resignation. Or is he now finger pointing at Parliament?
If he's telling parliamentarians how they should vote on the Afghan resolution, then he is indeed badly out of line. If he's telling our elected representatives through the media that they need to extend the Afghan mission, then he truly has overstepped the important limits to his mandate as CDS.
But I don't think that's what he said. More on this as some of my calls and e-mails get answered.
Upperdate: It's as I thought. From someone in a position to know what Hillier actually said: he didn't tell parliamentarians what to do about the mission. What he tried to get across was the idea that, whatever parliament decides to do about continuing the mission, all our elected representatives - regardless of party affiliation - express their support for the troops in the field:
"Lastly, I'll ask this on their behalf, is it too much to ask that our parliament, representing all Canadians, (and in a democratic system once troops are committed by our parliament they are committed on behalf of all of us, including those who might disagree), show their support for the men and women who will execute the mission by voting overwhelmingly to support them in the danger and risks they will encounter."
CTV, the Globe & Mail, and the Canadian Press owe both the general and the public a retraction and apology.
Upperdiddydate, or whatever comes next: Well, it's not a retraction or an apology. In fact, those courageous journalists at CTV and the G&M make no mention of it whatsoever on their sites, but the online articles have been changed to more accurately reflect Hillier's remarks.
From the current CTV article:
Hillier asks Ottawa for clear Afghanistan mandate
Updated Fri. Feb. 22 2008 4:48 PM ET
CTV.ca News Staff
Parliament should support the troops by establishing a clear mandate for Afghanistan or face an opportunistic enemy that will strike at perceived weakness, the country's top soldier said Friday.
Not quite what they were saying originally, is it?
From the 5:28 p.m. revision at CTV:
Liberal defence critic Denis Coderre said on Mike Duffy Live that he took that as Hillier asking Parliament to support the current motion. But Conservative Laurie Hawn, the parliamentary secretary for defence, responded that Hillier was referring to a separate motion. [Babbler's emphasis]
I should send a crate of water to the good folks at CTVglobemedia, to help them wash the crow down.
Uppestdate (for now): The weasels at CTV weren't even honest enough to publish a comment I left on the article in question. I fail to see how it lacks relevance, or is worthy of omission given all the rest of the pap they published as "reader feedback." I didn't save a copy of it, since I assumed it would show up in due course, but it was very much akin to this comment I left at the G&M site, but without the G&M details:
Anyone else noticing the CTV/G&M line is now changing? CTV changed both the headline and first paragraph of its piece, while the G&M has backed down from the claim that Hillier asked parliament to vote "overwhelmingly" to extend the Afghan mission. Neither change has been noted by anyone commenting here, or by the newspaper, so far as I can see.
Here's what Hillier actually said, folks:
"Lastly, I'll ask this on their behalf, is it too much to ask that our parliament, representing all Canadians, (and in a democratic system once troops are committed by our parliament they are committed on behalf of all of us, including those who might disagree), show their support for the men and women who will execute the mission by voting overwhelmingly to support them in the danger and risks they will encounter."
He's asking for a unanimous vote of support for the troops REGARDLESS OF WHETHER PARLIAMENT DECIDES TO EXTEND THE MISSION OR NOT. (Sorry for the caps, but it needs to be emphasized)
That's not what CTV and the G&M were originally telling you, people.
So much for transparency in what CTV reports. If this had been in print or on air, it would have merited a retraction. But because it's "only" electronic, they can pretend they never screwed it up in the first place? Even though thousands of readers were misinformed and will never notice that they've been duped by sloppy journalism?
Unethical much?
posted by Babbling Brooks at 1:43 p.m.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home