Canadian reporter suspended for praising troops in Afghanistan

[JaJae]

http://ca.today.reuters.com/news/new...PORTER-COL.XML

Radio-Canada reporter hit for backing Afghan mission
Fri Sep 8, 2006 3:09 PM EDT163

OTTAWA (Reuters) - One of Canada's top television reporters has been suspended from her job for praising the country's increasingly troubled military mission in Afghanistan, the company said on Friday.

Christine St-Pierre, a veteran Ottawa correspondent for French-language public broadcaster Radio-Canada, wrote an open letter to Canada's 2,300 troops telling them to ignore mounting criticism of the mission.

Five Canadian soldiers were killed last weekend, prompting ever louder calls for Ottawa to review the mission. One opposition party wants the troops to come back next February, two years ahead of schedule.

"We owe you all our respect and our unfailing support ... dear soldiers, your tears are not in vain, your tears are brave," St-Pierre wrote in the letter, which Montreal's La Presse newspaper published on Thursday.

Radio-Canada suspended her for breaching internal regulations that stipulate employees are not allowed to express their opinions on controversial issues.

"Ms. St-Pierre infringed a number of Radio-Canada's journalistic rules ... she has been relieved of her functions for an indeterminate period," said spokesman Marc Pichette, adding that the broadcaster was investigating what had happened.

St-Pierre told La Presse she knew she had gone too far and said she could no longer be objective when it came to reporting on events in Afghanistan.

"I don't think I'll be covering this story again," she said.

She was suspended for reporting on controversial issues. Why is this:
"We owe you all our respect and our unfailing support ... dear soldiers, your tears are not in vain, your tears are brave"
so controversial????

I don't get it. She didn't make any political statement. She just praised the troops it seems. It's absolutely absurd that she would get suspended for an indeterminate time for saying sending this message?

Canadians...

[beez]

She breached policy by expressing an opinion on a controversial issue. What's the problem? Have they not penalized their employees for speaking against the war in a similar manner?

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by beez

She breached policy by expressing an opinion on a controversial issue. What's the problem? Have they not penalized their employees for speaking against the war in a similar manner?

Supporting your troops overseas in such a non-controversial manner shouldn't be reason to lose your job.

Why is saying what she said controversial?

[beez]

The act of speaking was not controversial; the content matter on which she spoke was. Radio-Canada's policy is against speaking on controversial issues. The reporter herself admits in the end of your pasted article that she is aware that she cannot be objective in covering Afghanistan and should not be covering it anymore. It sounds like Radio-Canada's policy is appropriate and has been executed properly in this case.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by beez

The act of speaking was not controversial; the content matter on which she spoke was. Radio-Canada's policy is against speaking on controversial issues. The reporter herself admits in the end of your pasted article that she is aware that she cannot be objective in covering Afghanistan and should not be covering it anymore. It sounds like Radio-Canada's policy is appropriate and has been executed properly in this case.

I understand she knew she'd get in trouble for it. I'm not arguing that the policy isn't in place.

What I'm saying is why is this considered controversial to the degree where someone could be fired?

Why is telling the troops we owe you gratitude and your tears are not in vain something that can be so controversial.

I'm what I'm trying to say is when did supporting the troops in this text become taboo and something that sparks so much controversy that someone could lose their job? When did society change to such a new low?

[beez]

What she said isn't controversial at all. You're confused.

It's not the content of her opinion that matters but the public broadcasting of the opinion itself. Reporters aren't allowed to express opinions on controversial issues such as Canada's participation in the war in Afghanistan. Any publically expressed opinion calls into question the objectivity of the reporting done by that reporter and Radio-Canada itself. They don't want to be viewed as supporting or not supporting the military. Either position calls into question the quality of information provided by Radio-Canada.

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Why is saying what she said controversial?

Because she was talking about the mission in Afghanistan being worthwhile, and at the same time most Canadians don't want troops there.

Canadians Oppose Mission in Afghanistan: Angus Reid Consultants

There is a clear internal policy that you're not supposed to broadcast your opinion about ANY controversial thing, this was controversial, and therefore she was fired. It's all very simple and logical.

/thread

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

Because she was talking about the mission in Afghanistan being worthwhile, and at the same time most Canadians don't want troops there.

Canadians Oppose Mission in Afghanistan: Angus Reid Consultants

There is a clear internal policy that you're not supposed to broadcast your opinion about ANY controversial thing, this was controversial, and therefore she was fired. It's all very simple and logical.

/thread

She never said it was worthwhile. She just showed support for the troops, not the mission.

[R-Type]

Originally Posted by JaJae

What I'm saying is why is this considered controversial to the degree where someone could be fired?

I'm what I'm trying to say is when did supporting the troops in this text become taboo and something that sparks so much controversy that someone could lose their job? When did society change to such a new low?

her statements are considered 'controversial' for the same reason they would be if she had said "In baghdad today, the neo-fascist regime of the United States firebombed this poor family's house and..." Canada's law sounds reasonable actually because it prevents partisian bias in factual news reporting (as opposed to op-ed). Too bad it could be easily abused by the gov't to censure coverage it doesn't like under the guise of 'bias.' I guess we can't win

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

Originally Posted by JaJae

She never said it was worthwhile. She just showed support for the troops, not the mission.

OTTAWA (Reuters) - One of Canada's top television reporters has been suspended from her job for praising the country's increasingly troubled military mission in Afghanistan, the company said on Friday.

Unless you have the full text of the letter and can show she only praised troops and not the mission, I don't see your point.

[motivez]

Why don't we let the free market decide?

If people care enough to be outraged, they'll stop watching the television station, and they'll lose market share, and maybe give this lady her job back.

We shouldn't be regulating what businesses are allowed to do with their employees.

Right?

[R-Type]

Originally Posted by motivez

Why don't we let the free market decide?

If people care enough to be outraged, they'll stop watching the television station, and they'll lose market share, and maybe give this lady her job back.

We shouldn't be regulating what businesses are allowed to do with their employees.

Right?

Because news is supposed to be factual, and facts are not what people always want to see.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by motivez

Why don't we let the free market decide?

If people care enough to be outraged, they'll stop watching the television station, and they'll lose market share, and maybe give this lady her job back.

We shouldn't be regulating what businesses are allowed to do with their employees.

Right?

I'm not saying they shouldn't have the right. I'm saying what kind of society terminates employees for sending the message she sent? It's rare and definitely a modern stance to take on the issue of military.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

OTTAWA (Reuters) - One of Canada's top television reporters has been suspended from her job for praising the country's increasingly troubled military mission in Afghanistan, the company said on Friday.

Unless you have the full text of the letter and can show she only praised troops and not the mission, I don't see your point.

I'm goin by what she was quoted as saying. Those comments don't seem to be out of line.

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

Originally Posted by JaJae

I'm goin by what she was quoted as saying. Those comments don't seem to be out of line.

Well then you're just speculating. She wrote an entire letter, and you're going by two sentences.

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

Originally Posted by JaJae

I'm saying what kind of society terminates employees for sending the message she sent? It's rare and definitely a modern stance to take on the issue of military.

It's like you cannot see the forest for the trees. It's very reasonable to prohibit reporters from airing controversial opinions. If reporters were constantly doing that, there'd be a never ending stream of pissed off viewers. This woman publically aired her controversial opinion, and so according to the clear, reasonable policy, she was fired. As much as you'd like to twist it into "she was fired for supporting the troops," she wasn't. The same policy would've fired her if she wrote an open letter criticizing the troops, or giving her view on abortion, or whatever other controversial issue.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

Well then you're just speculating. She wrote an entire letter, and you're going by two sentences.

I'm going by the two sentences the article chose to single out to prove their point. Which failed in my opinion.

[kinggovernor]

french-canadians are real canadians

[Bob the Goat]

Originally Posted by motivez

Why don't we let the free market decide?

If people care enough to be outraged, they'll stop watching the television station, and they'll lose market share, and maybe give this lady her job back.

We shouldn't be regulating what businesses are allowed to do with their employees.

Right?

CBC Radio/Television is a national radio/television network that is funded by Canadian taxpayers and carries no advertising. It is a unifying national entity in Canada and as such is scrupulous in its efforts to report news objectively without taking sides or pushing any one political agenda. In Canada the war in Afghanistan and our troops involvement there is a very pressing issue. Canada has not been involved in a combat war since Korea, (ended in 1951), and has developed a reputation for supplying peace-keeping troops to create a buffer between warring entities. The reporters position is seen as "taking sides" in a national controversy and as an employee of nationalized media her employers, the tax-payers, do not want journalists to take sides but rather report both views without exercising oped leanings. Of course some specific shows invite public participation, (CBC Radio Cross Country Checkup) and provide a wide range of individual opinions. These shows are usually moderated by neutral hosts.
As a CBC journalist she would have been well aware that she was crossing a line by expressing her personal opinion and praise in an open letter.