March 31, 2003
So said Merella Fernandez on Citypulse News when the coalition forces suffered their first casualties in the war with Iraq. The way she said it, it was hard to determine whether she was trying to be over-dramatic, or whether she had just discovered that war could result in death. When you consider who she works for, it is kind of hard to tell.
How not to conduct polls:
It is now popular to ask a question of the day, and to tabulate the answers on media websites. While most sites state that these polls are not scientific, nevertheless, they should be fair.
Both of these questions appeared on the same day.
CTV stated that U.S./Canada relations have been strained in recent months, and asked readers what they thought the main cause was. The readers were given two choices: Washington’s indifference to Canada, or Canada’s decision to not participate in the war with Iraq? American/Canadian relations are important to Canada, and the issue cannot be framed by these two simplistic alternatives. There is a chance that neither of those alternatives is the reason. As the Prime Minister keeps pointing out, Canada is a sovereign nation and has a right to make its own policy. A likely alternative, not given in the poll, is that it was not Canada’s actual decision that caused the problem, but the way that decision was made; the hooting and hollering by the Liberals when Jean Chrétien announced that Canada would not be joining the coalition. And it is far more likely that relationships were strained by Chrétien’s deafening silence when his little caucus of juvenile delinquents were making their anti-American remarks.
The Globe and Mail asked, "A week into the war, do you now regret Canada’s decision not to participate?" Unlike the Globe’s editorial board, there are a lot of Canadians who actually regretted Canada’s decision before "a week into the war." And contrary to some lefty beliefs, these people are not just Canadian Alliance fanatics.
Where did the rest of the world go?
Unsurprisingly, the war with Iraq is receiving extensive coverage in the media. The more the war takes up, the less time or space is left for other news, and The National Post seems to be leading the pack with the neglect of other news.
The Post has a habit of focusing on certain matters, to the exclusion of other types of news. In February, when seven students were killed in a British Colombia avalanche, the National Post devoted almost its entire news section to the tragedy. On the first day of war reporting, the paper devoted 11 of 17 pages to the war with Iraq, while the remainder of the section was filled with Canadian news and editorial/comment. There was no other world news. While other Toronto dailies reported on such items as new revelations concerning the Elizabeth Smart kidnapping, trials of Khymer Rouge suspects, and Yasser Arafat’s new Prime Minister, the National Post covered nothing outside of Canada and the Middle East. This was a pattern that has been kept up.
Although the war is important, things are still happening in other parts of the world, such as Zimbabwe and North Korea. But you can’t find that out from reading the Post.
Whose side are they on?
All networks have titles for their war programming. "Target: Iraq" and CNN’s "War with Iraq" seem to be the favourites. Leave it to the CBC to call it "Attack on Iraq." In the great tradition of the people’s network, the U.S. is the aggressor and Iraq is the poor victim. This is hardly surprising from a network that, in between showing pictures of crying or injured Iraqi children, ponders whether or not the war is an attack on Islam. Then again, there is nothing surprising in the CBC's defense of the anti-American Chrétien government..