Fung and Smith: Current kidnappings in Afghanistan aren't being reported

Last week I attended a very interesting Canadian Journalism Foundation event at the Ignatieff Theatre at the University of Toronto. The Globe and Mail's Graeme Smith and CBC's Melissa Fung took part in a panel called Kidnapped, Threatened, Under Fire: Three journalists confront the realities of reporting in conflict zones.

You'll recall that Fung was kidnapped in Afghanistan just before the 2008 election in October, and the news of the kidnapping was embargoed and not reported by the media until her release in November

Fung and the Globe's Smith, both of whom have spent several tours reporting in Afghanistan and embedded with Canadian soldiers, were on hand to speak about their experiences reporting in a war zone.

I'd hoped to hear Fung talk about the experience of her kidnapping and release, but she indicated she wasn't yet ready to talk about that. Understandable, but disappointing. There was still some very interesting insights and comments shared, however. I'll present my notes below (mainly expansions of my live tweets), followed by my comments.

*Graeme Smith on his prep for going to Afghanistan: He knew nothing going in, read lots of stuff on the plane, and the Globe also contracts safety training from British ex-marines.

*Melissa Fung CBC also provides safety training, advice was if you're in trouble offer them money and, if you're a woman, cry a lot. Unfortunately she forgot to cry.

*Smith every time he's on a plane landing in a war zone he asks himself if he's satisfied with his life if the plane crashes. It's dangerous work, you need to feel its worth it,

*When to leave in a dangerous situation? Fung says you rely on your local Afghan fixer, but no where safe. Smith says it's not what the fixer says but how wide their eyes are, are they afraid? If so, get out.

*Smith The Taliban are firing rockets at Kandahar Airfield, there's no aiming systems they just point them in the right direction and pray – literally.

*Fung you can't consider the danger of everyday life there and dwell on the risks or you'll be paralyzed by fear and unable to function.

*Smith I learned I'm not an adrenaline junkie. I've had rockets, bullets and RPGs fired at me and my office raided by masked gunmen. Its not fun.

*Fung Being there gave me new appreciation for the everyday lives of our soldiers. And the Afghan people live with this danger every day, it makes me appreciate how lucky we are.

*Fung Our editors always ask before the writer leaves the base is it safe? They do care about our safety.

*Smith He finds the editors asking is it safe to be a bit silly. Of course its not safe, its Afghanistan!

*Smith jokes their editors concern on safety is also partly HR management: he can't write them stories if he's dead.

*Fung You wouldn't be a good journalist if you're not impacted on some level by the people you cover. Yes we're objective, but we're humans first.

*Smith We can lessen conflict by reporting on it. The media did an investigative series on torture in Kandahar prisons and system was subsequently changed.

*Fung If people tell her 'you almost lost your life media shouldn't be there' she replies you don't understand why the media does what it does.

*Smith I'll give intelligence agencies background briefings but won't give them actionable intelligence "I won't be another Stevie Cameron" (this gets some moans from the crowd)

*Fung I'm not really ready to talk about my kidnapping yet.

*Smith They used to be a lot more free to move around Kandahar but since Fung was kidnapped the media have been locked down to base without a military escort.

*Fung When she was released from captivity she was surprised about the media embargo and that there was no reporting of her kidnapping. When she was in captivity she was thinking 'man this a helluva story for my colleagues.' She doesn't know if the embargo was the right thing or not, it was the CBC's call.

*Smith We're fighting a losing war right now and he wonders why we're there.

*Fung The government says we're there so young girls can go to school, but originally it was the Taliban and 9/11. The government's pr message changed.

*Fung You can really tell how a country is doing when you talk to the women and children and see how they're being treated.

*Smith He can only mainly talk to men because of Afghan cultural rules. As a woman, its easier for Fung to write on the private lives of Afghan families and talk to normal people.

*Fung Its hard to talk to regular people because you can't stay in one place for more than five minutes for safety reasons. You don't want people to know there's a foreign journalist at a certain location.

*Fung If there was a kidnapping of an NGO woke and the NGO asked the media not to report it because they're in danger they'd absolutely honour that request.

*Smith and Fung both say the media are honouring currently requests not to report on several unresolved kidnappings in Afghanistan, for their safety.

*Fung She'd like to go back if the CBC will let her. There's still stories to be told and our troops are still there We need to keep going back.

My thoughts

When I first head of Fung's kidnapping and release and of the media embargo on coverage of her kidnapping until after her release, my first thought was that's great, but isn't there a double-standard here? It's great the media were all willing to do this for one of their own, but I'd find it hard to believe that, faced with the kidnapping of a non-journalist, they wouldn't just fall back on the old public has a right to know argument.

I was somewhat heartened by Smith and Fung's assurances that, were they to receive such a request, they'd honour it. One of the audience questioners was from an NGO who had a worked kidnapped in Africa, and she was quite strong on this question. The key though is to be very proactive to put the lid on, because once it starts to come out, its hard for the media to ignore. And, of course, with blogs and the Web, its hard to keep these things secret.

I was also fascinated and surprised to learn that at least one or two current Afghan kidnapping cases are under a media publication embargo. Whomever they are, I hope they're safely released soon.

Meanwhile, within the journalism community the debate continues over whether such embargoes are a good idea or not. Myself, I tend to err on the side of the safety of the kidnapped person rather than on my right to know they're in danger. Of course, there may be cases where publicity is desired, or warranted; it's a judgment call. However, it's important that NGO or journalist, the media's standards be the same.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

General Leslie on Fox News: I'll take the slanders for our young men

As mentioned earlier I attended a Canadian Journalism Foundation-sponsored event tonight where the commander of Canada's Army, Lt. General Andrew Leslie, was the speaker on the role of the media and the military in our democracy. Very informative, interesting event.

Since what I'm sure is on everyone's mind is the Fox News story, I'll jump ahead to that. About mid-way through the Q&A, a reporter from the CTV National News (they were taping, so look for it on the news tonight) asked Leslie for his reaction to the Fox comments, and specifically the slanders on his name. Follows is a rough account of his reply (may not be word for word):

“Did I say I looked forward to these questions?,” he laughed. “We all know the superb quality of the Canadian soldiers who represent us as truly world class, they have a reputation as tough, capable soldiers. We've shed a lot of blood in Afghanistan, and I just wish some of the private citizens – certainly they weren't former soldiers – of some of our neighboring countries and allies were more aware of our contribution … in a very tough fight. (And as for personal attacks on him) if our young men are willing to fight for our country, I'm willing to get slandered for them.”

That last bit earned Leslie his strongest applause of the night from the audience.

So, Fox drama aside, back to the beginning and his speech, which I had to watch from an overflow room via CCTV because I'd arrived 5 minutes late and, although there were still seats and I was pre-registered, the door was shut so CTV could tape. Annoying. (They let us in for the Q&A)

Kvetching aside, I thought Leslie made a very reasoned, thoughtful performance that made an honest effort to make both the Army's case and the case for media oversight of the military. I'll present my bullet-point notes on Leslie's speech and answers, and save my comments for the end.

* Soldiers and the media walk towards the sound of the bullets.

* He's faced some tough media interviewers, but by far the toughest audience he ever faces is his own soldiers. They're professionals and their lives are on the line, they want to know what they need to know, they have tough questions, and they're not afraid to ask them.

*The kinship between Canadians and its military is closer now than it's been in many years.

*Media scrutiny is essential to a successful military, and he welcomes that scrutiny.

*The military needs to be properly equipped to do the jobs its tasked with. And they don't decide the missions, the Canadian people (though their elected representatives and government) do.

*The rapid succession of evolutionary steps armies are taking to respond to the new threat paradigm is unprecedented, with traditional doctrines being re-examined and changed. We're well beyond the Cold War paradigm.

*We've reconfirmed our Army's reputation as one of the best small armies in the world. Yes, the cost is high, but it's an immutable fact that influence in international relations is often exacted by our men and women in uniform.

*We're increasing the Army's intellectual horsepower. We're improving support for families but more has to be done, he's the first to admit that.

*Speaking on Toronto he said we're still sensitive about the snowstorm so we won't talk about that but hey, you called and we came with shovels. This earns a laugh.

*Retention and recruitment is a major challenge. Attrition rates have risen from a traditional five to six per cent to a current nine to 10 per cent. Military has the same demographic challenges as the private sector, and so many soldiers are leaving for jobs on “Civvy Street” is causing him grey hairs. You can't walk off the street and be a regimental Sargent-Major, you need to start at the bottom.

*The Army leadership is obviously biased for our soldiers. But Canadians need to know the unbiased picture, and for that the Army relies on the media. Only with independent media scrutiny can Canadians be sure they're getting the clear picture. So long as it's far and balanced. But we need an engaged citizenry.

*There's been times where the results of your unbiased reporting have caused the Army to feel like it has digested a litre of cod liver oil. But while it tastes horrible, it's good for you in that it causes the Army to identify and ackowledge problems and take corrective action.

*Afghanistan is in some ways like Canada's Vietnam in that it's Canada's first TV war. It's real, and it's in your face. Media are embedded in the field. There's a constant media presence in Kandahar. It's challenging, bit it's been a success. The best PR for the Army is to let soldiers talk to the media, for for the media to see what they do.

*Through the media, Canadians need to see the faces and learn the names and the stories of our fallen. It's important for Canadians to be aware of the consequences when the Army is deployed to dangerous places.

*(Question on peace vs. war, necessity of war, and peacekeeping) We need a multiplicity of ways to deal with global threats. No soldier wants to go to war, but they're willing to go if they're told to by their country, to fight, and do die if necessary for their country. He happens to believe there are certain things worth dying for. There is diplomacy and other tools but when that doesn't work, you turn to the military, and folks in uniform go out and do their jobs and risk their lives in support of our international objectives. Soft power can't be disconnected from hard power, they're intrinsically linked. What's in the colour of a beret? The beret (we're wearing in Afghanistan) may be dull camo (instead of blue) but he still thinks we're doing the work of Pearson.

*(Oversight, can you spread democracy where its not wanted?) He's a strong believer in ministerial and parliamentary oversight. He thinks democracy is worth fighting for, but that's not his decision, that's yours. That's your debate to have.

*(Question, something about Afghanistan and the historical failure of 'scorched earth' approaches) The over application of military force is nit the way to get people onside that want better lives for their sons and daughters. This isn't' the Cold War, the military is now a much more able and sophisticated instrument. Sometimes we do have to fight and kill, that's not the objective but we will, especially if they're truing to get through to the people we're trying to protect. But it's not the objective.

*(Question on what's next, re-equipping the Army, future threats) If it's not complicated and dangerous, why send us? In the future, until more technology emerges, we need to equip our people with more amour and more Kevlar so they're protected when they go out. But once the work really begins when the ramp goes down. Where we go next the solution will not solely rest with the military, they'll go with diplomats and humanitarian groups to build society and the rule of law.

Infantrymen today are akin to the special forces of yesterday. If you want us to have those capabilities it's not a matter of flipping a switch. It takes 20 years to build a battalion commander, 25 years to build a regimental Sargent-Major. You want to think carefully of the consequences of throwing away capabilities an uncertain future may demand.

*(Question on poppy issue in Afghanistan) He's definitely not an expert, but he has yet to see a proposed solution to the poppy issue he could wholeheartedly sign-on to that doesn't raise questions once you consider the second, third, worth order of implications. And it needs to be a solution the Afghans can accept, to what degree can we push our ideals and values onto them?

*(Question, comment on George Galloway banning) No, I will absolutely, categorically, not comment on that. Good try though, and I complement you for it.

*(Same guy, but you think about retired generals speaking at political events, like Rick Hillier to the Conservative-sympathetic Manning Centre) An underlying premise of the democratic model is that, when in uniform, we're completely subordinate by law, practice and tradition to the government of the day. But when we hang-up that uniform we have the democratic right to go to the microphone and speak our minds. And that's a right Hillier spent his career in uniform defending.

*(Globe's Hugh Winsor asks long, and good, question. He says Leslie is very open and candid, and so are the soldiers on the ground, but there's a disconnect in the bureaucracy at DND. During the detainee affair, misinformation was given to the House of Commons and to the media. And after the detainee affair, DND set up a committee to vet and stall any contentious Access to Information request. How, Winsor asked, do you square your desire for openness and media scrutiny with the roadblocking by DND?)

Leslie gave Winsor a sarcastic “thanks Hugh” (apparently they go back a bit) and considered it carefully before answering delicately, noting he has nothing to do with the Access committee and he doesn't run the military end of the Afghan mission, so he's not an expert of the detainee issue.

But he said he thinks DND learned a lot of interesting lessons from the detainee affair, such as the consequences on iterations of working with Afghan military and police, with a nascent judicial system, and with limited oversight of prisons. He said the argument could be made that, with its investigative resources, the media shone a cold, hard light on the issue and now it's being handled much better, so the system works.

My Thoughts

If you're still reading at this point, I'll say I agree with much of what Leslie had to say, and I think he's a strong advocate for the Army and for the soldiers in the field. Obviously he had to be careful in his answers at time, he serves political masters and he needs to operate within their guidelines and desires. And that, frankly, is how it should and needs to be. We don't want soldiers making policy.

Obviously, while Leslie's message on welcoming media scrutiny is a good, appropriate one, there is a strong dose of propaganda to that. And while I think he's sincere, when you ask the media, the public and DND what an appropriate level of such scrutiny would be you're going to get three different answers. And a fourth when you ask the Harper government, and their view is the only one that counts.

So, no matter how genuine he is on it and whether all of DND is on board or not, the message is the right one and it's up to us, the public and the media, to keep the pressure on the military (and the government) to live-up to Leslie's desire for scrutiny.

And to ensure that, when we do ask our military members to saddle-up, it's for the right reasons, and that we've got their backs.

_____
**Help send a BCer to BC for the Liberal convention. Donations are tax deductible. Any support is greatly appreciated.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Democracy and Journalism: Off to see Lt. General Lesie

Given the controversy in the (progressive, anyway) blogs, eventually the media, and today in the House of Commons (a Conservative backbencher lobbed a QP question to Laurie Hawn, who called for Fox to apologize) over the asinine display of disrespecting our troops by the "comedians" at Fox News (they issued an "apology" today) it's appropriate I'm out the door and on my way downtown for this Canadian Journalism Foundation event:

Democracy and Journalism: The View from the Front
For our second event in the "Democracy and Journalism" series in collaboration with the Munk Centre, we welcome Lt.-Gen. Andrew Leslie, Chief of Land Staff of the Canadian Forces, to speak on the relationship between democracy and journalism from a military perspective.

Army chief General Leslie was mocked by name by the morons at Fox News (they found his last name amusing), so I'll let you know if the good general has any thoughts for the people at Fox News. And, of course, watch tonight or tomorrow morning for a full report on the evening's discussion on what promises to be an interesting topic. You can also watch my Twitter feed for some live updates via BlackBerry during the event.

P.S. Here's the QP exchange. Maybe more Conservative bloggers will register their displeasure now that those on high have signaled theirs' (transcript from closed captioning, I haven't time to fancy it up):

>> Mike wallace (c): Thank you, mr. Speaker. Canadians are outraged at the ignorant comments about the canadian military that is running on the fox news show "red eye with greg gutfield." The episode mocks the courageous efforts of canada's brave men and women in afghanistan and is particularly hurtful as canadians mourn the loss of four more soldiers who have paid the ultimate sacrifice. Can the parliamentary secretary to the minister of defence tell us what does he think about this appalling episode that belittles the efforts of our canadian military?

>> The speaker: The honourable parliamentary secretary to the minister of national defence.

>> Laurie hawn (c): Well, mR. Speaker, i want to first express our deepest condolences and friends to the family and friends of our soldiers who return to canada today after making the ultimate sacrifice in afghanistan. The comments expressed by so-called comedians on fox news are disgraceful, ignorant and insulting to the canadian forces members, our diplomat and the development workers who've died in afghanistan and others who've been injured. Canadians who know of -- and others who know of canada's efforts are not laughinG. Canadian troops have been consistently praised by allied commanders and political leaders for their courage, dedication and professionalism on the battlefield. I would hope these people recognize their remarks were wrong and would move to apologize to the families and friends.

_____
**Help send a BCer to BC for the Liberal convention. Donations are tax deductible. Any support is greatly appreciated.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Al Jazeera English: Coming soon to a Canadian television near you?

Today, Al Jazeera English (AJE), the English-language news network of Doha, Quatr-based Al Jazeera, the Arabic world's answer to CNN, formally applied to the CRTC for carriage on Canadian cable and satellite networks. And not coincidentally, former CBC News editor-in-chief Tony Burman, AJE's managing director, was in Toronto to talk-up AJE at an event I attended this evening organized by the Canadian Journalism Foundation.

First, the CRTC application, announced today. Burman says if successful, they hope to have AJE on the airwaves by the fall having, he said, already received unofficial indications form the major Candian carriers they'll carry the network post-CRTC approval. First the CRTC will study the application, and then will ask for public feedback. On that front, AJE has launched a Web site, www.iwantAJE.ca, to help rally the public to lobby the CRTC.

And in good news for journalists like myself, at a time when media outlets are laying off reporters, if AJE's application is approved Burman said they plan to open a Canadian bureau – making it the only international broadcaster to have a Canadian bureau. Last I heard, even the NY Times covers Canada from Denver.

On to Burman's presentation, and the q&a. Before sharing my thoughts, I'll share my notes on his (I also made an attempt at live-Twitter coverage, @BCerInToronto):

*He started out with a joke, noting that, much like Sarah Palin can see Russia from her home in Alaska, he can almost see Iran from his new apartment in Doha, Quatr, joking his gives him some special insight into events in the county.

*The idea behind AJ and AJE is to give voice to the developing world and bring their perspective to the news, speak truth to power and give voice to the voiceless.

*AJE is widely available in Israel and is the largest non-Israeli network in the country, a regular stop for Israeli government spokespeople, and the first Arab network to bring Israeli spokespeople directly to the Arab world. Why, he asked, is AJE available in Haifa but not in Halifax?

*AJE is regulated by Ofcom in the UK, and has never run afoul of their standards.

*AJE is a public broadcaster, much like the CBC and the BBC, and is funded by the Qatari government. Burman said like the CBC there is a firewall between the network and the government, and he's never seen any interference by the government in the network's editorial content.

*AJE has 69 bureaus around the world, and 150 journalists in the U.S. Its focus is in the Southern hemisphere, with large presences in Africa and South America.

*AJE was the only international broadcaster in Gaza during the recent war, and the only broadcaster to cover the war from both sides.

*AJ was created by the Quatari government to open the stifling media censorship in the Arab world, and was held up by the U.S. as the poster child for building Arab democracy. That changed, he said with 9-11.Particularly, he said, when AJ ran afoul by reporting during the Afghanistan war in 2001 that civilians were casualties of the U.S. attack, contrary to what the U.S. military had been insisting. Shortly later, AJ's Kabul bureau was bombed.

*From then on, Burman said, the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld cabal set-out to smear and brand AJ as a terrorist network. Sure, he said, Bin Laden sent his tapes to AJ – it's the largest network in the Arab world, he's after audience. The Unibomber sent his letters to the NY Times, but that doesn't make the Times a terrorist paper.

*Burman said Barrack Obama's decision to give his first TV interview to the Arabic world to Al-Arabiya, a network he said has a fraction of AJ and AJE's viewership, was viewed as puzzling and a mistake by the Arab world. The Arab world, he said, is hopeful but doesn't share the optimism the Western world has for Obama.

*He said he predicted a year ago internally at AJE that Obama would win the election in a landslide and he was viewed as crazy. People couldn't understand how the same people that elected George W. Bush twice could ever elect Obama.

*Addressing the complaints of hateful and controversial speech on AJ, Burman said these incidents are isolated and overblown. Much of it has come from an AJ channel that he describes as akin to C-Span, which shows live and unedited speeches and sermon. It's a product, he said, of AJ's free-speech inspired birth. But such views as sometimes heard aren't indicative, he said, of AJ or AJE's editorial perspective or mandate.

*There's aspects of American life of interest to the international community not usually covered by the US media. He expressed disappointment the CBC often covered the U.S. like an American network, rather than like a Canadian network with a Canadian perspective.

My Thoughts

I've never had a chance to watch AJE, but I say if we can have the option of watching Fox News, why not AJE? I think they would bring a very interesting perspective to international events, and perhaps for the Western world, an educational one. If AJE is in Haifa, indeed, why not in Halifax?

I think Burman somewhat glossed over some of the controversies in AJ's past, but it is the CNN of the Arab world and I think denying the option of AJE's perspective to the Canadian public is silly. I'll check it out if its on Rogers in the fall.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers