Right now, if you’re looking for news services with a truly global reach, there are only two. The BBC and CNN.

Next year, there will be at least one more, and if you speak French, you’ll have one in that language as well.

The French channel will emanate from France. It will be called CFII, (Canal Francaise Information International?) the French International News Network in English…

This project has been in the works for a long time.

From 2003:

By the end of 2004, the 24-hour news and information station, 100% financed by the state, will hit the airwaves not only in French but also possibly in English and Arabic.

Well, it’s the end of 2005 now.. but apparently the project is still on, and slated to start up next year

Their future rival, the BBC, reports:

The new network will be owned by commercial network TF1 and the state-funded company France Televisions.

The government has given initial funding of 30m euros (£23m) for this year, and allocated another 65m euros (£44m) for next year.

Employing around 240 staff, it will produce programmes initially beamed to Europe, Africa and the Middle East.

CFII will broadcast news around the clock in French, with a four-hour slot of programmes in English. There are plans to add programmes in Arabic and Spanish in due course.

The second source for International news will be from a name you already know well.

Aljazeera will launch a full, English-language, international network next year.

The Observer has an excellent article on what that means… and why AJ is wooing big name journalists and talking heads from the other big guns.

Among those attracted to the promise of foreign bureaus and nearly limitless resources is Dave Marash, a former Nightline correspondent and onetime anchor of WCBS New York, who is negotiating a job in the Washington bureau, according to sources close to the journalist. David Frost, the veteran BBC journalist and the first to interview Richard Nixon after Watergate, signed on earlier this summer. Former Nightline anchor Ted Koppel had a meeting with a representative from Al Jazeera International in Washington this fall, according sources close to Mr. Koppel. But nothing came of it.

But really, who would watch all this news? And what would make it any different, well, in AlJazeeras’ case:

Rebecca Lipkin, a former London-based Nightline producer, joined Al Jazeera International earlier this year as the executive producer for programming out of the London bureau.
… “If you told somebody at one of the networks that you want to put 20 minutes on the air about Central Asia, they would say you’re crazy,” she said. “I think this network would say, ‘Well, let’s think about this.’”

That means… at least to me, instead of hearing the same headlines, and talking points, from the same context of the networks host country over and over… we might actually hear about the World from its’ own perspective. And that is valuable. That is what an International news channel should be.

At least AJ is honest about who their targeting:

“We’re trying to reach educated decision-makers and young people,” said Mr. Parsons. “We would love to have an audience that regards us as their first source of balanced and impartial news. Beyond that, we’ll always be an interesting alternative source.”

I, for one, would love to see both these channels. If anything more voices telling slightly different stories is the best you can hope for to be able to make your own informed decisions. That said, I’m most excited to see AlJazeera. The perspective of the Middle East and Africa are totally un-represented in Western Media, and I would hope that this channel would shine a light into the day-to-day happenings of these regions.

AlJazeera may be viewed as “the enemy” by some… it may even be the target of bombings… but one thing is for sure, in the Arab world, it is a free and outspoken voice for reform. The Saudi government boycotts it, other repressive governments in the region try to ignore it. But they can’t, not when 50 million people watch it every day. I would like to hear that voice here as well.

Send this to Friends

It has to be done.. so I might as well get it over with on the first official day of the Campaign right?

Here are some predictions, prognostications and downright speculation for the election on January 23rd 2006.

One interesting facet of this election, looks like there will be 2 English debates, and one French. At least this is what I heard on the CBC last night, though it seemed not to be a sure thing.

#1: A Conservative MP will runoff at the mouth at a campaign stop in Ontario, after New Years. Much hay will be made in the media.

#2: (Assuming there are 3 debates as I said above) Jack Layton will be non-existent in two debates but be determined the winner in another.

#3: Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe will run an inept campaign, and will actually lose seats to the Liberals in Quebec.

#4: Stephen Harper will get pied… at least once.

#5: Paul Martin will get booed… everywhere.

#6: Paul Martin will win the French language debate.

#7: At least 2 out of 4 candidates will be caught on tape slipping on snow/ice/slush while “stumping”.

#8: All the leaders will be in BC more than in any other election in the history of Canada.

#9: The Liberals will be swept off The Rock (Newfoundland… they’ll keep Labrador)

#10: The Liberals will be swept off The Other Rock (PEI)

Final Seat Count:

Liberals: 130

Conservatives: 105

Bloc: 50

NDP: 21

Send this to Friends

Another in a continuing series of questions I have for politicians as this Election draws on.

You can see the first in this series at: Policy Position: On Peak Oil

Now that the Government has fallen and the Campaign is officially underweigh… time for another Policy Position.

Canadas’ Role in International Diplomacy

North Korea, the Sudan, Iran, Israel, Kashmir… these are only a handful of diplomatic trouble spots in the world. There was a time when Canada was viewed as a leading voice of reason and diplomacy. Unfortunately, it seems that as our military capability has waned, so too has our diplomatic initiative. Funding of the military is for another Position post… it need not be tied to diplomacy. What will the Leaders of Canadas’ parties do to reassert Canadas moral and diplomatic authority in the world, regardless of its’ military standing?

There is no doubt that there is plenty of “political capital” to be gained. Especially in this time of heightened sensitivity towards US Foreign Policy, Canada can act as an intermediary.

I am no Mulroney supporter, but one thing he *did* obviously understand was that in order for Canada to have a serious voice, we had to have an ear for both the Old and New worlds. Todays world is far more complex. With the rise of India, China, SE Asia, and South America as political, military and economic powers (some taking all those monikers, some not), there will no doubt be tensions. If anything, Canada should be able to draw on its’ very multicultural being to address these challenges. We have a Haitian as our Governor General, an Indian Health Minister, and dozens of other ethnic and religious groups represented throughout the halls of power across the country. This is an advantage that we must draw upon.

Canada still has significant mindshare when it comes to a mediating voice. Our future leaders must have the wherewithall to speak for us all, and bring Canadian values of diplomacy, multilateralism, and reconciliation to the Worlds table.

Send this to Friends

Clare Laking died today at the age of 106. Laking was a private with the Canadian Field Artillery, 27th Battery, 4th Brigade. He is considered the last remaining veteran of the Great War who saw action on the front-lines.

He served in France for two years, stringing telephone wire for field telephones along the trenches.

“I’d run for 20 yards and … then I’d flop, get up and run another 20 yards,” Laking said in 2004, recalling his trips to the front line…

He suffered a small flesh wound near the end of the war, when shrapnel hit his head.

Laking was awarded the French Legion of Honour and the Golden Jubilee Medal….

…

“My dad was against anything to do with the war,” he told CBC News in 2004, as he marked Remembrance Day.

“So I said, ‘I know, I’ll shut him up and enlist.’”

But they later reconciled and he said in 2004 that he had come to agree with his father’s pacifist ideas – that the world should settle its differences without war.

He has found his peace. May we honour him and the millions of others by working towards a world that knows only peace and reconciliation, not war.

Send this to Friends

DefenseTech has posted an excellent article out of the tragedy of the death of Canadian Soldier Pte. Braun Scott Woodfield when the LAV he was riding in flipped over on the road between Kabul and Kandahar.

There has been plenty of talk in the media about the “tippiness” of LAVs (and the US equivalent “Stryker”). Murdoc calls them out.. and argues:

Yes, the Stryker/LAV is probably a lot more prone to rolling than a tank. But, then, so is everything else. It’s this last point that usually is ignored or goes unmentioned.

There’s no doubt that the Strykers and LAVs have their downsides, but both the US and Canadian armies seem to be taking lessons learned and working hard to apply them to the real world.

But he ends on the most important point of all

Meanwhile, let’s not forget that though the US and Canada have had some differences of opinion on a lot of things lately, the Canadians have been in Afghanistan all along and are continuing to do a great job. Sometimes at great sacrifice.

Send this to Friends