Friday, May 14, 2021

A busy few days in reporting on the Canadian Forces

There has been a great deal of discussion and publication by the national news media in Canada regarding sexual misconduct, accountability, and alleged misconduct by senior military personnel.

It would require a lengthy and comprehensive blog post to address all of the narratives that have arisen in the past few days.  Indeed, it would require a relatively comprehensive commentary to separate the signal from the noise regarding those narratives. 

The present post is not a comprehensive discussion.  However, it does offer links to some noteworthy news media reports.  Readers are on their own initiative to examine and consider the merit and significance of each.  [And please excuse any editorializing that may creep into your loyal servant's comments that follow.]

One of the recurring 'events' are the broadcasts of meetings of Parliament's Standing Committee on National Defence.  These are regular fodder for news media.  These are typically described as 'hearings' although that is a bit of an exaggeration, particularly when compared to similar processes conducted by our American cousins.  They certainly have the feel of 'bread and circuses' that tend to accompany some of the more sensational hearings conducted by Congress south of the 49th Parallel.  The term 'testimony' may also seem to be a bit of a misnomer, as the commentary offered by 'witnesses' is not provided under oath.

Some of the headlines arising from those committee meetings include:

To be blunt, your loyal servant takes both the news reports, and the 'testimony' before the committee, with a grain of salt.  Granted, your loyal servant has a skeptical orientation.  The committee meetings are highly politicized and 'truth finding' does not always appear to be the priority.  The examination of 'witnesses', particularly where civil servants or representatives of the government are examined by Members of Parliament from Opposition parties, is often less-than-artful.  Moreover, when terminology is mischaracterized or laws and processes are described incorrectly, it does not instill the viewer or reader with great confidence (where the viewer or reader has knowledge and understanding of such matters). 

For example, when both reporters and 'witnesses' - who really ought to know better - characterize 'adverse personal relationships', as defined under Defence Administrative Order and Directive (DAOD) 5019-1, as 'fraternization' (which has a markedly different meaning under that same directive), confidence in the accuracy of other statements may wane.  That is but one mischaracterization in recent appearances.  Similarly, factual gaps - often filled by conclusory statements - can pose challenges in understanding the full context of the subjects of the reports.

Regrettably, in the fast-paced churn of the news cycles surrounding these subjects, facts sometimes take a back-seat to the sensationalism of the headlines.  Compare for example, the reporting about the appointment of the new Chief of Military Personnel (CMP), Lieutenant-General Steve Whalen.  The government news release "Acting Chief of the Defence Staff announces additional 2021 Canadian Armed Forces General and Flag Officer senior promotions and appointments" translated into "Military replaces another top officer in wake of sexual misconduct allegations" when reported by the public broadcaster, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC).

And, often, a news report will principally serve as an opportunity simply to rehash the same allegations and narrative that has been presented to the public over the past several weeks.  For example, very little of the Global News report "Head of Canadian military intelligence school removed amid misconduct probe" actually addressed that matter.  At least half the article was simply a rehash of other news stories. 

One thing is certain, the news cycles will continue, and information, misinformation, and even disinformation, will continue to flow.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Comments are subject to moderation and must be submitted under your real name. Anonymous comments will not be posted (even though the form seems to permit them).