Topic: For the love of god CBC....

[FSTO]

... next time you are commenting on an event involving the Navy get someone knowledgeable about the Navy to help you. It was more than embarrassing to hear not one but two Newsworld Hosts call the Flight Deck a Bridge. 

[Halifax Tar]

... next time you are commenting on an event involving the Navy get someone knowledgeable about the Navy to help you. It was more than embarrassing to hear not one but two Newsworld Hosts call the Flight Deck a Bridge. 

Have you never been to "Upper Canada" and had someone reply to you "We have a Navy ?"

I'm never surprised when the CBC FUBARs something Navy, its par for the course from these wing nuts. I'm just happy they didnt call HMCS Montreal, HMS Montreal.

[N. McKay]

Ignorance of military matters is endemic throughout the media although, in fairness to them, I've been happy to see not quite so many "the HMCS"es in the last few years.

[E.R. Campbell]

Ignorance of military matters is endemic throughout the media although, in fairness to them, I've been happy to see not quite so many "the HMCS"es in the last few years.

It's not ignorance; it's idleness and it reflects a lack of respect. They cannot be bothered to get small things right, to waste five minutes on fact checking, when it's only the military. But it's OK, by me, because I despise journalists as innumerate twits who couldn't get real university degrees or real jobs, either. Thus I expect what I get from 95% of them: twaddle.

[Strike]

It's also a matter of the liaison (PAO or whoever it happens to be) emphasizing the importance of stating certain points and why.  Media aren't military.  They don't always understand how important certain things are.

[Oldgateboatdriver]

...not to mention that they had to stand back when the frigate came alongside because they would be throwing "monkey's hands" instead of heaving lines with monkey's fists.

Also they mentioned that tugs had put the ship alongside.

 I did not see any in the pictures and, while always possible, I very much doubt it was the case. I've put enough ships alongside that coast guard wharf to know that it's one of the easiest alongside you can get: you are straight up into a four to seven knots current that parallels the wharf and you just park with power on and the wharf effect making it nearly impossible to accidentally bump into it.

I too was discussed by the report.

[ivan the tolerable]

It's not ignorance; it's idleness and it reflects a lack of respect. They cannot be bothered to get small things right, to waste five minutes on fact checking, when it's only the military. But it's OK, by me, because I despise journalists as innumerate twits who couldn't get real university degrees or real jobs, either. Thus I expect what I get from 95% of them: twaddle.

You know, you probably shouldn't hold your frustration in so much.  Speak your mind.  Let it out.   

Seriously though, well put, sir!

[FSTO]

...not to mention that they had to stand back when the frigate came alongside because they would be throwing "monkey's hands" instead of heaving lines with monkey's fists.

Also they mentioned that tugs had put the ship alongside.

 I did not see any in the pictures and, while always possible, I very much doubt it was the case. I've put enough ships alongside that coast guard wharf to know that it's one of the easiest alongside you can get: you are straight up into a four to seven knots current that parallels the wharf and you just park with power on and the wharf effect making it nearly impossible to accidentally bump into it.

I too was discussed by the report.

Yep I had to laugh when he said that. Also not to discredit any PAFO's out there but they should consult a MARS or Bosn when it comes to seamanship.
I would suggest that someone in the PA world have an ready made email with a representative picture of all our ships; pointing out the bow, bridge, flight deck, etc. and a very short lexicon on common naval terms that they would send directly to the CTV, CBC Global anchor desk. This would do 2 things, save the media from looking like idiots (again) and save my wife listening to me rant and rave at the TV.

[Stacked]

...not to mention that they had to stand back when the frigate came alongside because they would be throwing "monkey's hands" instead of heaving lines with monkey's fists.

  Did they REALLY say that? That's too funny.  Monkey hands... lol

[jollyjacktar]

  Did they REALLY say that? That's too funny.  Monkey hands... lol

It's the cutbacks, they could not afford fists so had to settle for hands.........

[milnews.ca]

I would suggest that someone in the PA world have an ready made email with a representative picture of all our ships; pointing out the bow, bridge, flight deck, etc. and a very short lexicon on common naval terms that they would send directly to the CTV, CBC Global anchor desk.

Getting it to the reporters' bosses =/= getting it to the reporter covering the event.  Most editors/news directors are too busy to make copies of fact sheets for reporters and telling them, "hey, if you ever have to do a naval boat thing, remember this."  Good PAO liaison and explanation face-to-face is probably best, especially after the reporter arrives and before the event happens.

[Maskell PDT883]

Read the last sentence for what Global News called the Navy.

http://www.globalwinnipeg.com/Will+Kate+send+Canada+message+soldiers/5035374/story.html

[a Sig Op]

Read the last sentence for what Global News called the Navy.

http://www.globalwinnipeg.com/Will+Kate+send+Canada+message+soldiers/5035374/story.html

They're also apparently holding a reception for "war bridges"

[Simian Turner]

Yep I had to laugh when he said that. Also not to discredit any PAFO's out there but they should consult a MARS or Bosn when it comes to seamanship.

And what is a PAFO?  Isn't it MARS Officer and a BOSN? (Maybe throwing stones on a public forum is unwise?)

[FSTO]

And what is a PAFO?  Isn't it MARS Officer and a BOSN? (Maybe throwing stones on a public forum is unwise?)

Alright then, Public Affiars Officer. And I was not throwing a stone, but if you want a subject matter expert then is it not better to go to the source?

[toyotatundra]

... next time you are commenting on an event involving the Navy get someone knowledgeable about the Navy to help you. It was more than embarrassing to hear not one but two Newsworld Hosts call the Flight Deck a Bridge. 

I have a bud who works in local TV. He is required to do a wide range of stories on a large range of issues. Early morning, he might be covering a medical issue. Late morning, a legal proceeding. In the afternoon, a military story. And before he heads home from work, a report on the local synagogue.

A lot of folk probably agree with you about the ignorance of journalists. I am wondering, however, if we can expect media generalists to be knowledgeable about the terminology of the groups they cover.

Imagine the rabbis rolling their eyes at my friend's story confusing mikvah with mitzvah. Or two cardiologists laughing at his replacement of atherosclerosis with arteriosclerosis.

[FSTO]

I would hope that someone in the PA empire in Ottawa would have a word with the director of news at the national networks and point out the errors and offer assistence when timelines allow.

[jollyjacktar]

I still remember the time when we had Breakfast TV on Preserver prior to our deploying on NATO in 2000.  Those of us not involved in the many dog and pony spots being conducted at various locations throughout the ship were watching the live show in the main cave.  Not once but three times both on ship and in the studio the various talkling heads and johnny on the spots called us HMCS Perverter.  A slip of the tongue, yes, but we nearly split our sides laughing when they did it each time.  And for the rest of the day we were asking each other "Who's your Daddy?"   

[MJP]

I would hope that someone in the PA empire in Ottawa would have a word with the director of news at the national networks and point out the errors and offer assistence when timelines allow.

I am certainly not in the PA world but have worked with them quite a few times in my short career.  In my experience they spend a good amount of time calling news agencies to correct factual errors but honestly once it is out there most agencies are not going to change much.  Joe civvy doesn't really care if it is a tank or a LAV, a bridge or a flight deck.  All they see is something military that looks cool.  The PAOs time is finite and they can't always be spending the time finding a SME if they don't know the answer themselves.  They certainly do if they have no idea how to proceed but for a routine military do-gooder story not likely.

I think that connecting with Canadians about the military is much more important than getting everything right.  Ya it might torque a few of us when they get something wrong but it is certainly better than no media coverage at all.  Canadians of all ilks hold us in pretty high regard right now (although there is some debate on if it is only an inch deep type regard) and it serves our best interest to keep em interested.

[Pusser]

Read the last sentence for what Global News called the Navy.

http://www.globalwinnipeg.com/Will+Kate+send+Canada+message+soldiers/5035374/story.html

Perhaps a harbinger of something to come?

[Pusser]

Yep I had to laugh when he said that. Also not to discredit any PAFO's out there but they should consult a MARS or Bosn when it comes to seamanship.
I would suggest that someone in the PA world have an ready made email with a representative picture of all our ships; pointing out the bow, bridge, flight deck, etc. and a very short lexicon on common naval terms that they would send directly to the CTV, CBC Global anchor desk. This would do 2 things, save the media from looking like idiots (again) and save my wife listening to me rant and rave at the TV.

Not to throw stones at PAFOs, but in my opinion, many of them don't have the requisite background to be credible in the fields upon which they're commenting.  Why do we have naval PAFOs providing media updates about land operations in Afghanistan?  Even if the guy is knowedgeable, the naval uniform automatically sucks away his credibility when discussing infantry operations.  The same is true of the army PAFO talking to reporters about hunting submarines.  I've always felt that the idea of taking officer candidates with journalism degrees and making them instant PAFOs is a mistake.  Every PAFO should have an operational background first and then then transfer to PAFO later.  In this way the former combat arms officer turned PAFO can give credible answers on questions of land operations, not because he read the brief before the reporters, but because he's lived it.

As an aside, I also believe that uniform colour should determine employment for everyone (i.e. cooks in ships should wear navy uniforms, sup techs in service battalions should wear army uniforms, etc). 

[medicineman]

As an aside, I also believe that uniform colour should determine employment for everyone (i.e. cooks in ships should wear navy uniforms, sup techs in service battalions should wear army uniforms, etc). 

 

Derailment warning.

Woohoo - I find I look a tad out of place here  ...back to the Army I go then?  Funny, wasn't it at one point almost all the PA's on submarines were Army or even worse, Air Force?  I can count on one hand how many PA's serving with Naval units on the West Coast are Navy...two fingers in fact.  One of those actually was Army and switched out when he got his Submarine Dolphins.  There's another coming to one of the boats as the Cox'n, so he'll have to change out as well.

Back to regularly scheduled programming.

MM

[toyotatundra]

I think that connecting with Canadians about the military is much more important than getting everything right.  Ya it might torque a few of us when they get something wrong but it is certainly better than no media coverage at all.  Canadians of all ilks hold us in pretty high regard right now (although there is some debate on if it is only an inch deep type regard) and it serves our best interest to keep em interested.

Television is, at the best of times, a predominantly visual and emotional medium. Detailed, accurate news reporting is valuable. However, I don't know how many minds are changed through rational discourse.  I can't speak for others, but as a recent recruit, I can tell you that it wasn't technical news reporting which led to my decision to sign up. Rather it was seeing images of soldiers and tanks, flags waving, and bag pipes playing. My response and motives were to a substantial degree, visual and emotional. "How courageous they are" "I want to be as tough as that guy" "Man, those tanks are cool."

[CDN Aviator]

  In this way the former combat arms officer turned PAFO can give credible answers on questions of land operations, not because he read the brief before the reporters, but because he's lived it.

Even better, stop putting PAOs in from of the media to answer questions. Put the commanders/those involved in front of the media to answer questions. The PAOs should only be there to prepare and advise them on how to respond to the media.

[milnews.ca]

Even better, stop putting PAOs in from of the media to answer questions. Put the commanders/those involved in front of the media to answer questions. The PAOs should only be there to prepare and advise them on how to respond to the media.

For the WIN!  PAO's are good, but nothing beats the SME.

[Strike]

Not to throw stones at PAFOs, but in my opinion, many of them don't have the requisite background to be credible in the fields upon which they're commenting.  Why do we have naval PAFOs providing media updates about land operations in Afghanistan?  Even if the guy is knowedgeable, the naval uniform automatically sucks away his credibility when discussing infantry operations.  The same is true of the army PAFO talking to reporters about hunting submarines.  I've always felt that the idea of taking officer candidates with journalism degrees and making them instant PAFOs is a mistake.  Every PAFO should have an operational background first and then then transfer to PAFO later.  In this way the former combat arms officer turned PAFO can give credible answers on questions of land operations, not because he read the brief before the reporters, but because he's lived it.

Pusser, what about those PAffOs (note the extra "f", or PAO as they prefer to be referred to as) who may have spent the majority of their careers on an Army base, working to support the Army but are wearing an Air Force uniform?  (This is a trick question...)  The point is, if someone is going to be talking about sub hunting or advance to contact, it should be a SME, not a PAO.  And if it is the PAO then there are really only two reasons that this is happening:
1 -- The PAO likes to be in front of the camera (and this should follow up with said PAO being briefed about what their job really is); or
2 -- No SME wanted to talk to the media (unfortunately, the more likely cause), which meant that the 'someone' stuck answering the questions is the PAO.

As for the journalism types who come in, I used to think the same as you, until I finished a nine month course and saw that those with the military background can learn just as much as the DEOs can learn from us.

(Milnews and Cdn Aviator, I agree with you 100%!)

[milnews.ca]

2 -- No SME wanted to talk to the media (unfortunately, the more likely cause), which meant that the 'someone' stuck answering the questions is the PAO.

Very good point - SME's (or their bosses) can say no in a way that PAO's can't.  And that doesn't just happen in the military, either.

[Pusser]

Pusser, what about those PAffOs (note the extra "f", or PAO as they prefer to be referred to as) who may have spent the majority of their careers on an Army base, working to support the Army but are wearing an Air Force uniform?  (This is a trick question...)  The point is, if someone is going to be talking about sub hunting or advance to contact, it should be a SME, not a PAO.  And if it is the PAO then there are really only two reasons that this is happening:
1 -- The PAO likes to be in front of the camera (and this should follow up with said PAO being briefed about what their job really is); or
2 -- No SME wanted to talk to the media (unfortunately, the more likely cause), which meant that the 'someone' stuck answering the questions is the PAO.

As for the journalism types who come in, I used to think the same as you, until I finished a nine month course and saw that those with the military background can learn just as much as the DEOs can learn from us.

(Milnews and Cdn Aviator, I agree with you 100%!)

I completely agree that it is the SME who should be doing the talking, but that unfortunately, is too often not the case.  Perhaps that's the problem that really needs to be fixed?

Further to my point on uniforms, we must remember that TV is a visual medium.  It's not just what you say, but how you look that conveys the message.  A neuro-surgeon can go on TV and will be seen as credible when providing commentary on his area of expertise in either a suit or scrubs, even if he's wrong.  But if you dress him up in a clown suit, he will instantly lose credibility and no one will take his commentary seriously, even if he is absoloutely correct.  McLuhan was right, the medium is the message.  I'm not saying that naval PAOs are not capable of commenting on land operations.  I'm only saying that the uniform they are wearing can possibly detract from their credibility and what the public perceives as a result.

[Strike]

I'm only saying that the uniform they are wearing can possibly detract from their credibility and what the public perceives as a result.

I completely understand where you're coming from, but unfortunately there is no purple uniform for PAOs to wear and it makes no sense having them change the colour of uniform every time they get posted.  It's just something that has to be accepted.

Sure, it would be nice to post Army PAOs at Army units, Navy PAOs at Navy units, etc, but then you don't get a very well-rounded PAO which hurts the CF as a whole, especially during joint (Isn't everything joint these days?) operations.

[CountDC]

 

Derailment warning.

There's another coming to one of the boats as the Cox'n, so he'll have to change out as well.

Back to regularly scheduled programming.

MM

As Cox'n?  Didn't think that was possible.  Why would he have to change out?

[Jim Seggie]

I just received a call from a local station wanting me to comment on the end of the combat mission in Afghanistan. As a serving member, I declined.

[medicineman]

As Cox'n?  Didn't think that was possible.  Why would he have to change out?

Yup - a previous Cox'n of VIC was a PA too.  Because it's a Navy position, if they take the job and aren't Navy, they have to change out.  They just aren't the boat's PA anymore, that's all.  Don't forget, medical is kind of a secondary duty for a submariner PA - they're a watchkeepr first.

MM

[FSTO]

I completely understand where you're coming from, but unfortunately there is no purple uniform for PAOs to wear and it makes no sense having them change the colour of uniform every time they get posted.  It's just something that has to be accepted.

Sure, it would be nice to post Army PAOs at Army units, Navy PAOs at Navy units, etc, but then you don't get a very well-rounded PAO which hurts the CF as a whole, especially during joint (Isn't everything joint these days?) operations.

To many in the Navy, Joint means the Army is running the show.

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Have things changed from  my days? PA are Non-commissioned officers?

Only Chief Petty Officers (or, I suppose Chief Warrant Officers) can be Cox'ns.

IMO, the way to go with PA's if we want to maintain their "professional" appearance is to issue them with a set of uniforms from each element. This way, they can put on whichever one happens to be appropriate to the day's affairs they handle. A bit cumbersome, but potentially worth it for image's sake.  Besides, IMHO, they should only need DEU's - none of that nonsense of wearing "combat" clothing unless they are specifically "at the front". Rant on - Nothing galls me more than seeing people giving public addresses or briefings or press conference on base or at headquarters dressed in "combats". In the field is another matter, but have you ever seen one of the American or French or British senior officer giving such a presentation at an HQ or base office dressed in anything else than service dress? (Or for that matter, when was the last time you saw a Pentagon press conference given by uniformed personnel NOT wearing a tie? I can't recall one)  - Rant off.
 

[milnews.ca]

Rant on - Nothing galls me more than seeing people giving public addresses or briefings or press conference on base or at headquarters dressed in "combats". In the field is another matter, but have you ever seen one of the American or French or British senior officer giving such a presentation at an HQ or base office dressed in anything else than service dress? (Or for that matter, when was the last time you saw a Pentagon press conference given by uniformed personnel NOT wearing a tie? I can't recall one)  - Rant off.

At the Pentagon most of the time, it's ties-on-in-fancy-dress, but never say never, either - note official pix from the Pentagon's briefing room (no, they're not all from the same briefing ) :

[Oldgateboatdriver]

I stand corrected.

To atone, I shall drop and give you an extra 30 tonight when I come back from my jog.

[milnews.ca]

I stand corrected.

To atone, I shall drop and give you an extra 30 tonight when I come back from my jog.

No need - it appears to happen (based on a rough look at the assembled PR pix) only about 5-10% of the time, so you're still mostly right 

[N. McKay]

Have things changed from  my days? PA are Non-commissioned officers?

I read PA to mean physician assistant.

[Strike]

Have things changed from  my days? PA are Non-commissioned officers?

Only Chief Petty Officers (or, I suppose Chief Warrant Officers) can be Cox'ns.

 

They were referring to PAs in the sense of Physician's Assistant (Damn!  Beat me to it!), not PA as in Public Affairs. The closest to NCMs being PAOs are the people from Army News (oooh, I just got a flash of a certain geo-tech in my head.    )

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Thank you all for clearing my confusion. I my days, the trade was called Med A's for Medical assistant.

To confuse things more, in the Navy we called then tiffies.

[N. McKay]

Thank you all for clearing my confusion. I my days, the trade was called Med A's for Medical assistant.

Isn't it one of those trades that changes with rank, like stokers (mechanic-technician-artificer)?

If so, could someone outline the progression please?

[CDN Aviator]

I my days, the trade was called Med A's for Medical assistant.

Med A is now called Med Tech. PAs are a different group.

[PMedMoe]

Med A is now called Med Tech. PAs are a different group.

PAs are Med Techs who have undergone the two-year Physician's Assistant training.  Once they are done, they get a new MOSID.

Almost all medical trades have the same first five numbers of the MOSID.  It is the second, two number sequence that differentiates the various trades:

Med Tech, PA, PMed Tech, Lab Tech, X-Ray Tech, etc.....

Gets a little confusing sometimes.   

[medicineman]

Have things changed from  my days? PA are Non-commissioned officers?

Only Chief Petty Officers (or, I suppose Chief Warrant Officers) can be Cox'ns.

IMO, the way to go with PA's if we want to maintain their "professional" appearance is to issue them with a set of uniforms from each element.

PSSST - PA's are Physician Assistants - they are WO's and above - no more 6B  Sgts for those that remember them.  And yeah, Cox'n of subs are C2's normally - if they've got the requisite submarine time and the rank, they can be asked if they want the job.  I do have uniforms for every element, though my Hair Force stuff is still that hideous blue.

PA(ff) O's are Public Affairs Officers and yes, hold a commission.

Didn't think you were THAT old  .

MM

Edit - sorry I'm beating a dead horse.  I'll hang my head in shame now.

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Well MM, what do you think the first three letters of my  username stand for

Actually, I just think I joined when I was very young - I may have been one of the last boy seaman!

[ctjj.stevenson]

I will just say this: if I am correct, I remember reading that the CBC's Chief Correspondant (i.e., Peter Mansbridge) used to be an officer of the RCN. Therefore, there should be a policy at the CBC that with anything Navy related, the staff of the CBC should ask Mr. Mansbridge if they are correct in the information that they are telling Canadians.

[CDN Aviator]

I will just say this: if I am correct, I remember reading that the CBC's Chief Correspondant (i.e., Peter Mansbridge) used to be an officer of the RCN. Therefore, there should be a policy at the CBC that with anything Navy related, the staff of the CBC should ask Mr. Mansbridge if they are correct in the information that they are telling Canadians.

He served in 1966-67. Mansbridge served less time than the former Corporal-turned -journalist-who's- name-makes-kittens-die-if-mentioned, and we know how much we regard him as an expert.

[Halifax Tar]

SCOTT TAYLOR

I hate cats

Anyways... My in-laws got me his book for xmas... Talk about faking a thank you...

Oh it was signed by him as well

[ArmyVern]

...
I hate cats
...

We could plan a book-burning in my office when I get back from leave at the end of the month. Just sayin'.

Had to delete the rest of your post containing name and 'him' because I like cats. 

[milnews.ca]

I will just say this: if I am correct, I remember reading that the CBC's Chief Correspondant (i.e., Peter Mansbridge) used to be an officer of the RCN. Therefore, there should be a policy at the CBC that with anything Navy related, the staff of the CBC should ask Mr. Mansbridge if they are correct in the information that they are telling Canadians.

How current do you think Mr. Mansbridge stays on naval issues, language and terminology 45 years after he was in?  I've been out more than 20 years, and a LOT has changed....

[F3m5h3p]

former Corporal-turned -journalist-who's- name-makes-kittens-die-if-mentioned

Awe.

[Pat in Halifax]

Isn't it one of those trades that changes with rank, like stokers (mechanic-technician-artificer)?

If so, could someone outline the progression please?

Actually for info, as of 1 Feb 2012, it is just Marine Engineer, now MOSID 0367 (from 00121, 00122 and 00123- or in the 'old' days 311, 312 and 313). I think all will go this route eventually. The Naval Electrician  (ETech) trade did it too last year.

Pat

[Simian Turner]

Med A is now called Med Tech. PAs are a different group.

There are still (some) Med As (MOSID 00150-12 and 00150-13) in the Reserves, Med A vs Med Tech depends on qualifications (pre-hospital/primary care paramedic versus nursing assistant/hospital-based care).   In Reg Fce they all are indeed Med Techs.

[Jim Seggie]

I just read that CBC has trotted out young Omar K......and are all atwitter with him.

Link

http://www.cbc.ca/video/news/audioplayer.html?clipid=2206321944


Mehar Arar, not Omar K.

[fraserdw]

It's also a matter of the liaison (PAO or whoever it happens to be) emphasizing the importance of stating certain points and why.  Media aren't military.  They don't always understand how important certain things are.

In 1999, we had a PAO at Gagetown who regularly referred to M109s as "Canada's heavy tank, like the German Tiger" in her prep school accent!

[medicineman]

I just read that CBC has trotted out young Omar K......and are all atwitter with him.

Emphasis on the root word being "TWIT"?

MM