Halifax International Security Forum, Soundbites and the Media - Part 1

Last week an international forum on global security was held in Halifax. Attendees, panelists especially, included big guns from all over the world. CPAC gave it extensive coverage. Several hours of it, in fact, are up in video format on their website in the video-on-demand area under the title Halifax International Security Forum. 

There is also a website created by the agency which sponsored the forum, The German Marshall Fund of the United States, on which video of a large portion of the conference in posted.  There's close to twelve hours of it at that site and, apparently, this is the second year in which the German Marshall Fund has sponsored a forum in Halifax.

CBC's coverage was weak, to say the least. Thanks to all those alternatives out there in cyberspace, we don't need the CBC, or any MSM television outlet, for that matter, to filter such events through their warped lenses and spin them via carefully chosen soundbites.

Of course, neither CPAC's coverage nor the coverage at the German Marshall Fund site may not have been of each and every minute, because, as we all know, some of the best dialogue can occur while standing in front of the urinal in the men's washroom, at the coffee and banquet tables, or in the hotel gym. But, thanks to these video sources, at least we can listen to and view some of the formal sessions and come to our own conclusions.

Media coverage, being what it is, cannot be much more than soundbites, short interviews and the like, but they could choose to examine the themes of the conference, rather than just the occasional supposedly "gotcha" moment, like this one - 'Neuter Iran' U.S. senator tells conference - which serves their anti-American agenda so well. The senator in question is Lindsey Graham. Of course, Senator Graham had much more to say than that. In both CPAC's and the German Marshall Fund's coverage, we hear his entire response to a reasonable question from a reasonable journalist (yes, they do exist). He speaks to the question for a full four minutes (32:30 to 36:30) and essentially sums it up saying "all options are still on the table" AND a Democrat Senator seated beside him agrees with him.

Of course, it helps that Senator Graham is a Republican, one who speaks with a southern drawl to boot, which entitles CBC to be especially dismissive and suspicious of him.  Nevertheless, CBC commenters are treated to a tiny portion of his spoken words, a two or three seconds long soundbite only, and they are lapping it all up, frothing at the mouth with America bashing.  CBC "lap-dogs" seems to me an appropriate moniker for them and, of course, CBC's spin seems to have been mimicked up by media organs around the world, playing right into the hand of Iran's oppressive regime.

That piece is not the only one featuring an American Senator. This one's not bad,  even if it is naive - US Senator talks about nukes.  But, of course, in this case  the Senator is a Democrat and has no drawl, which makes her eligible for a friendly and respectful television interview, but it appears CBC believes its own soundbite selection amounts to good journalism even if it may have serious consequences for the people of Iran. Quell surprise!!

The discussions broadcast via both these websites were both highly informative and very encouraging. So, if you've got several hours to spare, and are interested in avoiding media spin, here's what CPAC covered:

First, there's an introduction with Peter Mackay, Canada's Defense Minister, Mark Carney of the Bank of Canada, who has some interesting things to say about reconstruction of the world's financial system.  Best soundbite from this segment comes at 1:22:50 when Denmark's Defence Minister Gitte Lillelund Bech talks about the distortion created by the media. The funniest part of this is the moderator is an American media personality, CNN's Jill Dougherty, who responds to Bech's criticism with a meek "Hum. Interesting. Interesting." Yah, right, Jill. CNN is one of the biggest offenders and it's one of the reasons I no longer have a cable subscription and have put my TV in (probably permanent) storage.

The second segment features Ehud Barak, Israel's Defense Minister, Janet Napolitano, U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security and Baroness Pauline Neville-Jones,  British Minister of State for Security, moderated by a BBC journalist.  Barak also makes a well deserved snipe at the fifth column media  - "..but not in front of a camera", he says, reflecting what we all observed during the Iraq war, namely that the MSM became the willing partner in a propaganda war waged by head chopping terrorists.

The third segment features Lindsey Graham, Republican Senator from South Carolina, part of whose comments I have covered above; Mark Udall, Democrat Senator from Colorado; and Norm Orstein, of the American Enterprise Institute, which must surely piss off CBCer, Jian Ghomeshi. Surely one of the highlights of this part must be the joke told by Mr. Orstein at the beginning of the session.

Segment four features Vic Toews, Canada's Minister of Public Safety and John Manley, former Deputy Prime Minister. One of the last questions asked by a member of the audience raises the issue of political correctness. I wasn't especially thrilled with the answer given by either of the gentlemen to whom it was directed, although Toews described police and government relations with ethnic communities which is encouraging.  But the specific question of political correctness was more or less sidestepped by both of them, I dare say, even flirted with.

Segment five deals with NATO and features Gen. Stéphane Abrial, NATO Supreme Allied Commander for Transformation (NATO is examining its future role in the world); Canadian Defense Minister, Peter MacKay; Condoleezza Rice, former U.S. Secretary of State and National Security Advisor and Murat Mercan, Turkey's foreign affairs committee chairman.

Section six features Premvir Das, Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies, India; Masafumi Ishii, a Japanese ambassador involved in international security policy and Admiral James Winnefeld, NORAD commander.

Section seven is an interview with U.S. Senator John McCain.  Section eight, which deals with the use of armed forces in disaster relief, features Gen. Walter Natynczyk, Chief of Canadian Defence Staff; the editor-in-chief of a major newspaper and a Pakistani television service and Gerald Martone, Director of humanitarian affairs for the NGO International Rescue Committee.

Section nine, the last session, includes the Belgian Defence Minister; a former U.S. national security advisor; the president of the Palestinian Economic Council for Development and Reconstruction and Said Tayeb Jawad, former Afghanistan ambassador to the United States.

See. I told you they were big guns.

And here's some of the other bits CBC chose to highlight (emphasis mine): Canada's Afghan mission might be extended

"The Harper government is considering a proposal that would keep hundreds of Canadian troops in Afghanistan until 2014 in a non-combat, training role, The Canadian Press has learned.

The move would extend Canada's military presence in Afghanistan three years past the July 2011 withdrawal deadline set by Parliament, but would remove troops from the front lines of fighting."

[---]

"Well-placed sources have told The Canadian Press they expect Prime Minister Stephen Harper to make a decision soon on a proposal that would send up to 600 troops to Kabul to continue NATO training efforts. The Canadian personnel would not be involved in combat operations."

[---]

"John Manley, the former Liberal deputy prime minister who headed Harper's independent panel on Afghanistan, confirmed in an interview that he had been briefed on the proposal. He said the training mission is a good fit for Canada after so many hard years of fighting in Kandahar."

Apparently, the CBC does not remember their own story from less than a year ago:

"The government has insisted Canada's military mission will end in 2011. But its ministers and staff — including Defence Minister Peter MacKay — have suggested Canadian soldiers could remain in Afghanistan beyond that deadline, though perhaps not in combat."

Nor do they have a clue about the difference between combat and development nor do they get it that for development to be successful, security needs to prevail.

Look. I know the value of the money we give you declines as the cost of living goes up and I know you have had to make do with whatever amount parliament decides you should get.  I also know you have a union which believes you are entitled to more and more of our money, but perhaps you should get out of the news reporting business altogether. Face it. You're not doing a good job of it.

And by way of illustration, here's another: 'Masked man' did not use Aeroplan ID: airline

"Public Safety Minister Vic Toews appeared to downplay the incident Saturday at an international security forum in Halifax.

He said that aside from the silicone mask, there was nothing unusual about the case, which came to light after CNN obtained a copy of an internal alert by the Canada Border Services Agency.

"In this particular case, as a result of a leak to a news agency, it became public knowledge," Toews said."

You can hear for yourself exactly what Toews said (Day 2, Panel 2 at the second site). He is answering a well framed question from the BBC journalist. His answer lasts two minutes and five seconds and goes into much greater depth about the procedures, which are common to all security agencies, government ministers and department heads, than CBC's little snippet would indicate.  He even suggests that intelligence about possible terror plots is something that these agencies deal with almost on a daily basis, and only the most critical ones, those requiring Ministerial briefing and direction, are brought to his attention.  It reminds me of the leftie media's fixation with the infamous "seven minutes", during which President Bush was supposed to have resolved the crisis immediately following the collapse of the twin towers on 9/11.

Moreover, CBC seems to have missed a larger issue, namely, leaks to the media endanger real people. The "masked man" presumably has family and others in China, who may very well be facing some unsavoury consequences because of that leak. Do you care, CBC?  You did the same thing with the Wikileaks documents and invited your leftie fans to pour over them to find savoury bits.

But over and above that, CBC seems to have missed the larger point of the conference, namely that military responses, while necessary, cannot be the only way to respond to terrorism. Development is also important, but the tremendous challenges of providing aid and development in backward nations, especially in failed states where there is no government, are very serious impediments. It's almost as if the entire purpose of the conference is, to them, the proverbial "elephant in the room".

We all know the CBC has a left leaning bias, but is our Grandmother's Corpse staffed with intellectual midgets? Yeah, I know. There's not much difference between the two.

Stay tuned. I'll have more.