Beyond the warm and appreciative welcome being given this week to Canada's new prime minister in Afghanistan, the people around Stephen Harper must be feeling a special heat.

They can sense the unrelenting scrutiny of Canadians watching at home — wondering and worrying about Canada's role in Afghanistan. The stakes in this mission are high.

This is certainly evident to us at the CBC after a week of special coverage about Afghanistan on CBC television, radio and online. The week was highlighted by The National's unprecedented broadcasts anchored from Kandahar by Peter Mansbridge.

The intensity of Canadian feelings — about all aspects of the issue — came through loud and clear in the hundreds of e-mails, phone calls and letters that have flooded the CBC during the past week in response to this coverage.

But a viewer from remote Hainan Island in China, watching CBC-TV via the internet, reflected the prevailing sentiment among many CBC viewers:

"Sitting here on the South China Sea, watching The National from Kandahar," wrote Ross McKinnon of Qiongzhou University in Wushishan, Hainan, "makes me think of how small the world is and how proud I am of the Canadian forces serving as peacemakers, as well as NGOs from Canada, who are trying to make the world a better place for all."

The magic of the internet, e-mail and other technological advances have forged a new relationship between news organizations and their audiences. More than ever before, we are able to get near-instant reaction to what we are reporting.

And in ways that are quite exciting, even revolutionary in some respects, this opens up the possibility of creating a genuine partnership between journalists and their audiences.

I remember in the late 1970s when I began working on The National as a senior writer to Lloyd Robertson and, then after him, to Peter Kent. (I wonder whatever happened to those guys. They had so much potential.) We worked largely in a vacuum with very little way of finding out what "the audience" actually felt.

Occasionally, after our newscast went off the air and there were only a few of us around, I would fling open our office windows and peer deeply into the dark, still emptiness of downtown Toronto, with nary a creature stirring, and start shouting:

"OK, people! We know you're out there. Not all of you are asleep. We worked hard. You watched. Tell us what you think. Don't be shy!"

I never heard anything back until one late night, after a particularly robust performance on my part, if I may say so myself, I heard a gentle and flirtatious "yoo-hoo" coming from the street five floors below.

The respondent apparently was one of the neighbourhood hookers strolling home after an evening's work. We concluded that growing our audience one viewer at a time had its limits, so my early efforts at direct audience interaction came to an end.

But if we fast-forward to today, we are no longer shouting into the darkness. We live in an entirely different media world.

News organizations are more accessible than in the past, audiences are far more demanding and today's technology is providing an amazingly instant connection.

I spent several hours last weekend reading the more than 100 pages of messages directed to The National in response to its broadcasts from Kandahar last week.

They are a real slice of Canadiana. Coming from all parts of the country and many other parts of the world, they reflect the varied emotions that Canada's involvement in Afghanistan evokes.

Some felt the CBC's focus on Afghanistan was, by itself, an implicit endorsement of the Canadian government's position. Others believed that Afghanistan is where Canada should be. And as many argued that, with so many Canadians already in action in Kandahar, "this is not the time" to open a debate about whether Canada should be there.

But overwhelmingly, the majority of e-mails and messages expressed respect and affection for Canada's military. There was an emotion, even intimacy, evident in these messages that seemed almost unCanadian in their tone. Canada's soldiers were applauded universally for doing a job that — until these CBC broadcasts, at least — few Canadians understood.

And the most poignant of these messages came, of course, from the relatives of those Canadians actually serving in Afghanistan:

Although the CBC respondents rightly directed most of their appreciation to the 2000 or so Canadian soldiers stationed in Afghanistan, several also wanted to thank the CBC team covering the story in Afghanistan — including correspondents Peter Mansbridge, Patrick Brown, Carol Off and Stephen Puddicombe, as well as the CBC producers and production crews.

Here's one message that came in on March 10 that I didn't mention to Peter when I talked with him on a broken telephone connection to Kandahar last week:

"I'm a lifelong CBC viewer and listener, both of TV and radio. I'm writing to state my disgust about Peter Mansbridge posing in front of some file footage on a green screen [in Toronto] … pretending to be in Afghanistan all week."

We cherish everyone in our audience, of course. But it's e-mails like this that make me want to go back to that open window and shout once again into the dark and forbidding night.

Your Comments


March 16, 2006 \| 14:04 EST	Mark Higgins	Waterloo
With the coverage in the Middle East being so abundant it is easy to become a spectator of war. This spectatorship, I believe, does inform the rest of the world, and simultaneously domesticates the Western world. It allows Canadians to sit back and merely commentate on the matter. As such, family members of military personal are searching to 'find their son or daughters' in the mass slaughter like an insipid kid skimming through a 'Where's Waldo' picture book. What would be the difference if this war was broadcasted in radio only. Would the facts matter more, would it be less spectacular. Would the spectators have to work harder to understand, or be more critical of this ideological war on terror? Maybe what we need is split screen coverage in different parts of the Middle East, in addition to our surround sound and flat screen t.v's so us domesticates get to experience the real deal.
March 15, 2006 \| 06:27 EST	Mark-Alan Whittle	Hamilton Mountain
As a taxpayer I'm glad Prime Minister Stephen Harper supports our fighting men and women of the Armed Forces and saw fit to visit them personally and at great risk to his person. What I'm not glad about is NDP leader Jack Layton undermining Canada's support by questioning our role, our troops are fighting in a foreign land for freedom and democracy. A government decision to support the war on terror and send troops over there should have the support of all members of parliament until such time as our help is not needed and the Taliban insurgency has been eliminated.
March 15, 2006 \| 10:38 MST	Ron Edy	Calgary
I have tremendous respect for our men and women who have chosen to serve our country on peace keeping missions. BUT, we have crossed the fine line that lies between UN sanctioned missions and US offensive missions. I can now expect Harper will begin to justify more and more military spending and as many of your viewers know, once that spending begins, as it has in the US, it will accelerate to no end. Our government is leading us in the wrong direction. Our government is leading us down a road of unknowns . It will demand our support for military spending and turn our attention away for financial support for saving our Health Care system and in the end , 90% of Canadians would rather support the latter. We need to debate this issue immediately. We need not worry what message that it would send to the terrorists because they don't care . They have a strong religious agenda that will never be abandoned for the simple reason that they will never submit to what WE think is right. They have governed themselves by their Holy laws for thousands of years and unless we plan to have troops over there for the next thousand years, our efforts will be wasted. Listen to our government officials very carefully. At some point they will trip over their own tongues(which stretch south across the 49th.) and will lose favour in fairly short order. "cut and run" does not mean that we are cowards(only a moron would think so). It is time to use our brains not brawn.
March 14, 2006 \| 21:16 AST	Gerald Cavanaugh	Halifax
Unfortunately I was not able to see The National from Afghanistan but I appreciate the effort on the part of CBC. As to the "green screen" there will always be the doubter.
March 15, 2006 \| 23:39 PST	Janet Davis	Halfmoon Bay, BC
Do you believe that my viewing experience is enhanced by watching interviews with saddened and grieving family members? I don't. I wonder how the families of the men and women serving in Afghanistan feel about that.
	B. Wilson	Fredericton, Canada
The American media has, at times, been complicit in allowing the patriotism card to be used to shutdown debate and silence critics of military action. I hope the CBC will be vigilant that it does not mutely allow dissenting points of view on Afghanistan to be framed as somehow not 'supporting the troops'.
March 15, 2006 \| 18:22 PST	sherrysmith	nanaimo,b.c.canada
I have to agree with the negative comments about Peter Mansbridge reporting from Afghanistan as it may be nice to be over there honoring our troops, but many Canadians including me do not agree with this mission, do not agree with American foreign policies in the Middle East and DO NOT want to be considered a part of it. We were not consulted on the role our boys were going to play and it has changed. All Canadian's who live in a Democracy have to be able to be a part of something as dicey as this. When Rick Hillier was calling insurgents, murderer's and scumbags that upset me immensely. Canada is known for helping people help themselves and not to be murderous scumbags and to have the right to not want to be associated with people who wage illegal war, occupation, torture, manipulation, bogus news, and no respect for the U.N. Please CBC, don't turn your back on the rest of us in Canada who want to know the truth, who want a debate, and who want a vote on the extension. I see nothing wrong with developing a strong Military and being proud of it, but the powers that be should be very careful not to put us in the same company as America. That would most definitely put all of us in harm's way. We have always been respected for not trying to change others; but I don't like this Bush rhetoric coming out of Harpers mouth. Let's do something original and good, not something damned.
March 15, 2006 \| 13:03 EST	Chadwick Day	London, Ontario
With regard to your coverage of Afghanistan, I think it is very appropriate for Mr. Mansbridge to be there. It would be good to see a lot more detail on the types of reconstruction our people are involved in, and also some detailed discussion about the attitudes and history of the Taliban. Too many Canadians have forgotten why we should be there in the first place; reminding them of the evil and violence of this group of extremists would be helpful. With regard to some of the negative comments, I am disgusted by the naive and ignorant attitude of many Canadians, insisting that we MUST be peacekeepers, not peacemakers. Evidently they are too stupid to understand or remember the dreadful failure of peacekeeping both in Rwanda and Bosnia. Unfortunately, in the modern world, conflicts are far more violent and the combatants are ever more morally bankrupt; we must be prepared to use deadly force when necessary to stop massacres like those mentioned above, as well as the genocide in Darfur, and the constant terrorism of the Taliban. If we lack the resolve and moral fiber to do this when necessary, we are simply hypocrites. Our brave men and women in the armed forces deserve far better than to be dumped into the middle of a conflict ill-equipped and in insufficient numbers to accomplish their mission, with a "peacekeeping" mandate, meaning that they do not have a mandate to use deadly force even to defend themselves, let alone anyone else!! All Canadians should read "Shake Hands with the Devil" by Romeo Dallaire. I hope that our people serving in Afghanistan (and elsewhere) will understand that a great many Canadians understand the importance of their mission and support them whole-heartedly!
March 15, 2006 \| 07:49 MST	Jane Paterson	Gilbert Arizona
We are far from home but as a family we work everyday to hold up the Canadian values we hold so dear. CBC by e-mail is almost our only connection to a land that is the most glorious in the world. I am proud of the contribution Canadians make to the world and we are raising our sons to be proud Canadians too.
March 15, 2006 \| 08:17 EST	Sandra McArthur	Collingwood, Ontario
When I watch 'the news' I go to CBC every morning & every night. We don't need to be "entertained" when we want to catch up on what is going on in the world. Keep up the good work CBC. Not just Canadians need you for the real thing.
March 14, 2006 \| 13:33 MST	Francis Penny	USA
Hey Tony. -- Regarding the eMail message you mention at the end of your piece. I can sympathize with the sender. After all, Mansbridge and his journalistic cronies can't really move about in Afghanistan or Iraq with any real freedom. So, even if they're on site so to speak, it's pretty much pretending because there's really no way for these people to get the real stories. Your comments about that eMail illustrate, for me, the smug attitude of media.....complacent, obsequious journalism, lapdogs for the party line and very much, despite your statements, unconnected to your listeners/readers/viewers. Francis Penny A Canadian Abroad
March 14, 2006 \| 12:23 EST	aileen ridley	waterloo.ontario.
Sorry, Mr. Burman, I still don't agree that Peter Mansbridge should be in Afghanistan doing our news for us there. Obviously, parents of troops there love it, but we don't. The way Mr.Mansbridge is sent to the scene of various disasters, and now war, is an embarrassment. Because your business is "news" (whatever you decide that is) you have a lop-sided view of the reality that his being there presents for people who have sensitiviy to the feelings of others. To make the tragic situation of Afgh. into a photo-op for Mr. Mansbridge, is galling. Overriding all this of course, is the fact that the Canadian public have not been consulted about troops being sent over there in combat missions, when we believed that they would continue to be Peacekeepers. yours sincerely, Aileen Ridley.
March 14, 2006 \| 09:01 PST	John Lund	Nanaimo, BC
I am proud of our men and women serving in Afganistan but I am also proud of CBC and its coverage of our armed forces there. You are some of the best news reporters in the world. Please do not become CNN North. Thank you, John Lund
March 14, 2006 \| 08:56 MST	Darrell Winwood	Grande Prairie, Alberta
Hello CBC, I just read the on-line column by Editor in Chief Tony Burman and want to add that I really appreciate the CBC. Not your coverage, not the work, just everything, the CBC itself period! I'm not a typical CBC viewer I guess, first I'm in Alberta (insert joke here) and second I'm a 26-year-old guy. But I truly respect the incredible work done every day by the CBC. I've been watching the National almost every night since I was in college. I love how you have so much respect for the news there aren't even any commercials in the first half-hour of the show. I grew up in Edmonton and have been to the garrison many times and met many of our troops. I loved Rex Murphy's editorial last night (Monday) about Afghanistan, it was dead on. Murphy is one of the best editorialists I know of, always keep him going. But not just the news, I have spent the last two nights watching the Tommy Douglas mini series and loved it! Only the CBC would make the effort to produce that show and it was wonderful to watch. So keep doing what you're doing and I'll keep watching.
March 14, 2006 \| 10:38 EST	david holmes	trenton ontario
It is difficult to understand how "we stand on guard" for Canada in the mountains and valley's of Afganistan. Over time if the casualties continue to mount our government will need to better define the goal of the mission. Presently it seems to be to prop-up any local government not outwardly hostile to the United States.
Top of Comments

Your Comments

Submit your comments