The Torch: Afstan: CDA media round-up

Thursday, May 15, 2008

Afstan: CDA media round-up

This article has already been linked to in other posts--scroll down for Afstan.

11 Comments:

Fotis said...: Intersting article on the CDA. Seems the like the distinction beteween think tank and front group is getting more and more nebulous.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080516.wmilitary16/BNStory/National/home

This seems very similar to recent revelations in the US (more in spirit than in letter).

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Pentagon_military_analyst_program; 9:04 a.m., May 16, 2008
Fotis said...: REsend of link:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080516.wmilitary16/BNStory/National/home; 9:05 a.m., May 16, 2008
Fotis said...: Sorry for the spam the link does not come through...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/national

See "Think tank's funding tied to getting good press"

by Steven Chase; 9:09 a.m., May 16, 2008
Anonymous said...: Do you even read what the CDA does or read what they write? Or do you just trust the Globe and Mail's quasi hatchet job?; 11:52 a.m., May 16, 2008
Fotis said...: I read them regularly, including their submission for the Manley commission.

Does pointing out the terms of a grant qualify as a hatchet job? What specifically do you take exception with?

I don’t think that the CDA has altered its opinions and positions to get grants. I think their views have been relatively consistent. I think they have a perspective that is in line with today’s government. I have no objection to the CDA as an organization publishing its views.

I do take exception that they are being given grants by the government with explicit guidance to editorialize its position (again a position in line with the governments) but that they do not have to disclose that fact.; 4:03 p.m., May 16, 2008
Babbling Brooks said...: they are being given grants by the government with explicit guidance to editorialize its position

I'm not sure that characterization of their mandate is accurate, Fotis. See my post of 16MAY08.; 6:04 p.m., May 16, 2008
Anonymous said...: There is no clause in the agreement for the $$ that the CDA should "editorialize" the position of the government. You're making that up. It says the CDA has to reach X amount of media mentions/whatever. Nowhere does it say that it has to meet the current government's line of the day.

In your own words - if the CDA is consistent, how can it be a government mouthpiece? Especially during the Liberal government vs. the current government.

There, that's my beef with your characterizations. Why don't you call the CDA or email them, asking them how they go about writing their stuff?

And since when is $100,000 big bucks for a government grant? I know individual PEOPLE who get that much money per year from government. Nobody questions their credibility, except if they write right-of-centre material.

Good weekend, Sir.; 6:38 p.m., May 16, 2008
Mark, Ottawa said...: Disclosure: At the invitation of the CDA I have for more than a year been attending "round-tables" with very well-informed persons (some rather different from what Steve Staples might think) they organize. To quote from the standard invitation: "on important security and defence issues...The roundtable will conducted under a version of Chatham House rules (not-for-attribution). A sandwich lunch will be provided."

I've seen no partisan, as opposed to intelligent and concerned, interest at the meetings. And, TANSTAFL aside, my price is greater than a free lunch. Now if only DND would subsidize me--and Babbling. Then we might toe a line. Not.

Mark
Ottawa; 7:42 p.m., May 16, 2008
Mark, Ottawa said...: Hell, "The Torch" has access problems
at DND/CF. From a recent e-mail to us:

"I don't know if it's a coincidence, but it seems your blog is finally blocked by the internet filtering service here at DND. I can't imagine that it's because of your criticism of the new defence plan...oh well...I guess I'll have to wait until I get home to read it.
...
PS It is still possible to read it using the cached google copy. It might not update as quickly as the real mccoy, but it's better than nothing."

I'm still waiting for a government-paid meal at Hy's in Ottawa. Though I suspect the access problems are not by design.

Mark
Ottawa; 7:51 p.m., May 16, 2008
Fotis said...: Dexter:

"There is no clause in the agreement for the $$ that the CDA should "editorialize" the position of the government."

I don't question the ethics of the CDA. There is the appearance the government may be funding people who proxy it's position. The government maybe fronting itself.

"Especially during the Liberal government vs. the current government."

I was not aware that they were also paid by the previous government for the same service. I will look into it thank-you.

"Good weekend, Sir."

Correction, good long weekend :); 10:17 p.m., May 16, 2008
Anonymous said...: Just saying, Fotis - it hurts when people call organizations "fronts" with a single G&M article to back them up.; 11:44 a.m., May 17, 2008