OK, I have to post this somewhere. The Ottawa Citizen posted this today. Hey the subject is patriotism. Sounds like good news, which doesn’t sound like the David Pugliese and his National Post bosses. Not to be disappointed, the article is another that describes CAF efforts to implement its reserve plan a failure, that it’s all because the press wasn’t adequately informed, specifically attacking the CDS. I’m not saying that the programme isn’t flawed, but certainly some of the ideas sound appealing. This hasn’t been done before. It’s needed. But the way this “bastion of democracy” and its journalist attacks just about every aspect of the CAF and its leadership is more reminiscent of Rebel News than part of a national news network. Have a read for yourself. I may be out to lunch, but to me there is a constant negative vibe that comes out of this journalist and his outlet. If TNSR shared the moon with the Ottawa Citizen, Noah would be on the bright side, DP on the other. See:
Yep. DP is a nasty piece of work. I remember when I first discovered him, and I was so excited to be reading about the Canadian military in a major publication that contain specific details, rather than just vague references (Murray Brewster is getting better, but has a tendency to dumb down his articles, like he doesn't expect his audience to know anything or be interested in details). I didn't initially realize that his negative bias towards the military is persistent, rather than issue based, and I gave his opinion more weight than it deserved, just because he was actually addressing issues I was interested in. Because the Ottawa Citizen is pay walled after a couple articles, I couldn't read enough of his articles at a time to see the trend and adjust accordingly. It wasn't until I started reading Noah's work in TNSR that I had enough context to see how consistently DP finds a way to flip the narrative and slip in the knife. It was not a pleasent revelation... I thought I was using discretion by being skeptical of some of DPs more out rageous statements, not realizing he was skewing the offerton window more subtly.
Harry, my experience with him was exactly the same. I too was excited to see someone who had a specific defence column. I even congratulated him via email when I read his articles in the newspaper. Even got to see him at CANSEC. But for the past decade it’s as if he’s been writing for MAGA, even before I’d heard of MAGA. So if I read him again, he may just get a load of buckshot from me. Noah, young Pippa Norman with the Globe and Mail, these young folks are refreshing and really put Murray and the Canadian Defence Review staff look pretty redundant, even boring. Thanks for your comment. BTW, my CDSEA comment outlines my CAF background.
I’ll have to add my civvy experience too someday. Cheers.
The most consistent message I read in his articles now is something along the lines of "let's all show patriotic support for our soldiers, while shaking our heads in dismay at how poorly they are lead!". It kind of ignores that the leaders of the CAF haven risen from the ranks of the CAF, which makes it very disingenuous. And because he appears to be supportive of this imaginary ideal soldier within the CAF, it allows him to disguise his blatent disdain and disparagement of CAF and DND leadership as some sort of morally justified advocacy on his part. It's really disgusting. I wouldn't characterize it as MAGA, although it certainly is MAGA adjacent at times. While it could be that he is writing on behalf of people or an organization with a vested interest in Canada not taking its own military seriously (historically there has been a serious political lobby in the states that wants Canada dependant on the US for leadership and innovation in the defence space, so it's not impossible that the group is MAGA adjacent), it also could be DP has taken a hit to his world view, and his cynicism of CAF and DND leadership is genuine. That doesn't prevent him from being an unwittingy catspaw of special interest groups, but it could be simply that someone is taking advantage of his now obvious bias to feed him talking points. It might even be that he has been sucked into the oh-so-danferous MAGA echo chamber, and that's why he echo's their talking points. Without knowing more of his personal story, it's impossible to say. But I prefer to ascribe motivations to stupidity before malice, because it keeps my perspective from getting too cynical.
Using an imaginary ideal CAF solider as a foil for constructive criticism and informed critique has some merit, but it can also be an intellectual crutch. Taken to an extreme, you end up with a situation like Chuck Schumer in the US Senate that has been making policy on behalf of his imaginary constituents, the Bailey Family, for decades and decades. Yet the characteristics and interests of the imaginary Baileys have been stuck in amber and do not reflect the reality of his constituency, much less the modern world.
Obviously the journalist is in a very different position than the Senate Minority Leader, but what sound like persistent anti-CAF biases influence public opinion when they are published in Ottawa and function as essentially the only military columnist in the country.
OK, I have to post this somewhere. The Ottawa Citizen posted this today. Hey the subject is patriotism. Sounds like good news, which doesn’t sound like the David Pugliese and his National Post bosses. Not to be disappointed, the article is another that describes CAF efforts to implement its reserve plan a failure, that it’s all because the press wasn’t adequately informed, specifically attacking the CDS. I’m not saying that the programme isn’t flawed, but certainly some of the ideas sound appealing. This hasn’t been done before. It’s needed. But the way this “bastion of democracy” and its journalist attacks just about every aspect of the CAF and its leadership is more reminiscent of Rebel News than part of a national news network. Have a read for yourself. I may be out to lunch, but to me there is a constant negative vibe that comes out of this journalist and his outlet. If TNSR shared the moon with the Ottawa Citizen, Noah would be on the bright side, DP on the other. See:
https://ottawacitizen.com/public-service/defence-watch/patriotism-canadians-mobilization-force
Yep. DP is a nasty piece of work. I remember when I first discovered him, and I was so excited to be reading about the Canadian military in a major publication that contain specific details, rather than just vague references (Murray Brewster is getting better, but has a tendency to dumb down his articles, like he doesn't expect his audience to know anything or be interested in details). I didn't initially realize that his negative bias towards the military is persistent, rather than issue based, and I gave his opinion more weight than it deserved, just because he was actually addressing issues I was interested in. Because the Ottawa Citizen is pay walled after a couple articles, I couldn't read enough of his articles at a time to see the trend and adjust accordingly. It wasn't until I started reading Noah's work in TNSR that I had enough context to see how consistently DP finds a way to flip the narrative and slip in the knife. It was not a pleasent revelation... I thought I was using discretion by being skeptical of some of DPs more out rageous statements, not realizing he was skewing the offerton window more subtly.
Harry, my experience with him was exactly the same. I too was excited to see someone who had a specific defence column. I even congratulated him via email when I read his articles in the newspaper. Even got to see him at CANSEC. But for the past decade it’s as if he’s been writing for MAGA, even before I’d heard of MAGA. So if I read him again, he may just get a load of buckshot from me. Noah, young Pippa Norman with the Globe and Mail, these young folks are refreshing and really put Murray and the Canadian Defence Review staff look pretty redundant, even boring. Thanks for your comment. BTW, my CDSEA comment outlines my CAF background.
I’ll have to add my civvy experience too someday. Cheers.
The most consistent message I read in his articles now is something along the lines of "let's all show patriotic support for our soldiers, while shaking our heads in dismay at how poorly they are lead!". It kind of ignores that the leaders of the CAF haven risen from the ranks of the CAF, which makes it very disingenuous. And because he appears to be supportive of this imaginary ideal soldier within the CAF, it allows him to disguise his blatent disdain and disparagement of CAF and DND leadership as some sort of morally justified advocacy on his part. It's really disgusting. I wouldn't characterize it as MAGA, although it certainly is MAGA adjacent at times. While it could be that he is writing on behalf of people or an organization with a vested interest in Canada not taking its own military seriously (historically there has been a serious political lobby in the states that wants Canada dependant on the US for leadership and innovation in the defence space, so it's not impossible that the group is MAGA adjacent), it also could be DP has taken a hit to his world view, and his cynicism of CAF and DND leadership is genuine. That doesn't prevent him from being an unwittingy catspaw of special interest groups, but it could be simply that someone is taking advantage of his now obvious bias to feed him talking points. It might even be that he has been sucked into the oh-so-danferous MAGA echo chamber, and that's why he echo's their talking points. Without knowing more of his personal story, it's impossible to say. But I prefer to ascribe motivations to stupidity before malice, because it keeps my perspective from getting too cynical.
Using an imaginary ideal CAF solider as a foil for constructive criticism and informed critique has some merit, but it can also be an intellectual crutch. Taken to an extreme, you end up with a situation like Chuck Schumer in the US Senate that has been making policy on behalf of his imaginary constituents, the Bailey Family, for decades and decades. Yet the characteristics and interests of the imaginary Baileys have been stuck in amber and do not reflect the reality of his constituency, much less the modern world.
Obviously the journalist is in a very different position than the Senate Minority Leader, but what sound like persistent anti-CAF biases influence public opinion when they are published in Ottawa and function as essentially the only military columnist in the country.