perhaps the feeing frenzy was because the reporters were hoping the VP would grant them a face to face news briefing. Then, they could get to the real questions all are trying to get. This administration will only interview with "friendly" networks. In their case they consider FOX to be the safe place to spin. Most of the american people consider FOX just south of propaganda and far right of the true press. Where did the VP go to be interviewed? You guessed it, it took a couple of days to work out the rules of ingagement but FOX did a real good job of K A. And now you know the rest of the story.

I was happy to hear you ideas on reform in the media content. I have some suggestions for you on canadian topics that I feel need more in depth coverage. First how about that health care that our nation fought so hard for just a short time ago. The rumour is that two tier is on the way. Is this true? Are canadians going to be given a chance to vote on this? Hey, and while you are at it how about a look and worker conditions, safety, salary comparisons, union strength compared to years past, and canadian job satisfaction. Anyway thanks for thinking about change in the media, cbc might be on the right track.

I have always appreciated CBC's approach to news coverage and I hope that it continues to report stories that have national and global implications and that the potential to affect us all in some way. I find most US "news" media and even some Canadian newspapers and television news agencies focus on stories that really only affect the people involved (e.g., anything to do with Michael Jackson). US news media is too influenced by marketing (what sells) and by political bias.

If you like Dick Cheney, then the coverage was too much. If you don't like Cheney and his Cabal, then it wasn't. The story had legs because the man himself doesn't talk to anyone but the miltary, or people who agreed with him. CBC coverage lacked the depth of others, such as slate.com...from a hunters perspective, Cheney didn't come out looking so good in the article.

The issue was SAFETY and following the rules and I learned a lot more about gun safety. Too bad CBC couldn't see the story for the news. And Jon Stewart made me laugh!

what I'd like is more good news about more good people doing more good things to other people. I'm tired of the bad news.

I suppose it is in the spirit of your new program direction that one of the headlines in your Arts and Entertainment Section Today is "Trump dumps on Martha"

I wondered as well as to the amount of coverage on the Cheney birdshot episode. I have become increasingly concerned over media coverage generally. The Gretzky "story" certainly is a glaring example. Wondering though if I am the only person noticing the media bias on the election coverage and now the "information" coming at us on our new government. Yesterday we heard wisdom on our new Prime Minister's "strategy". Is there any possibility that Stephen Harper cares about Canada and is making decisions based on what would make a strong Canada? Or are we so used to political games and selfish ambition that we need to put a negative spin on every report. Certainly the journalists must know what motivates every public person and it certainly can't be good.

I very much appreciate CBC's news services. What I would like to see more of, though, is more courage for critical comments. Coming from a European country, some of the independent media there does not mince words when it comes to some common-sense observations, i.e. the correlation of bird-flu and the atrocious conditions most domestic animals are kept in. Why not mention the opinion of scientists and animal-welfare organizations who point these things out? They have also a right to be heard I think, and I as a citizen have a right to be informed about it.

The manner in which stories like the Cheney shooting are covered is probably more important than how much they are covered. The angle I wanted to see followed would address the message that this accidental shooting says about the VP of the USA. Is his impulsivity just restricted to the game farm or is he similarly careless when it comes to issues of foreign policy or domestic disasters? Given his trigger finger, I wouldn't want to see Cheney walking the beat in my neighbourhood, let alone leading the most powerful and bellicose country on earth. Covered in this way, the story could have said a lot about leadership in the White House and provide insight into Cheney's (and Bush's) eventual place in history.

Thank you for your thoughts. The media does need to be clear, concise and to the point. Reminder of the reporting from the 50's and 60's.

Oh, and by the way. Can we we stop calling search and rescue dogs sniffer dogs. All dogs sniff, that is what they do. they are called search and rescue dogs. Drug detection dogs and bomb dogs. Would be like saying, a talking reporter. Great site, great radio. Thank you Richard Smith

It seems obvious to me why the Vice Presidential shooting was such an important story. The NRA's poster boy and arguably most powerful man in the world demonstrated his lack of ethics and sound judgement in dealing with the accident. The NRA secured its place in America by posing as an organization dedicated to gun safety. It is clear today that the NRA is far more devoted to proliferating the widespread ownership and use of guns than gun safety and this story illustrates that point.

It is also an irresistable irony that this administration and one of its chief architects can now be viewed as "trigger happy" on more than one level.

Stories like this are important because they reveal insights about the true colours of Cheney, his PNAC pals and their agressive policies. The media will always have its share of sensationalists and and 'feeding frenzies'. It comes with the territory.

Maybe it’s just wishful thinking, but one would think that all the attention payed Cheney’s “mishap” would have shed additional light on the rest of the “mishaps” that have shaped the legacy of the Bush administration. The smoke and mirrors leading into Iraq, the NSA wiretaps hubub, the New Orleans disgrace....Libby...Abramoff...the list seemingly never ends, and is, in fact, growing by the day. So the media goes in for some gristle while the rest of us are left to ponder the question of whether an impeachment would weigh the evidence by the tonne. Either way, butchers, and lawyers, and journalists, and the bloggers will have work for many years to come.

The reaction to the Cheney story reflects a lot of people's deep dislike of the neo-conservatives governing the US. The feeding frenzy is probably a way to say that this is a story that the administration cannot spin out of (look at Rumsfeld's defence of unlawful detention)--it's pent-up frustration getting a bit of airing. On the surface, perhaps it has gone overboard and it seems "easy", but this is so Monty Pythonish that even Monty Python would have to take a bow.

There are of course major differences between the broadcast media and the print media when it comes to news reporting. The largest pitfall is yellow journalism, closely followed by "info-tainment".

The journalist in the print media is less likely to resort to either of these for the simple reason of reputation building. They also have the obligation to provide background information. However this integrity can quickly melt when the organization is subject to external influence (business, political or special interest) resulting in editorialization rather than objective reporting.

Responsible journalists and editors do not do this but leave the opinions for the editorial writers. A good news organization will provide an equal balance of opinion.

The electronic media do not normally have this luxury because they are limited in time and bound to the good will of the advertisers. News anchors are not necessarily good journalists but they are definitely good "hosts". In the end it becomes a war of ratings not a contest for excellence of news reporting. News becomes entertainment not well balanced insightful reporting. People are more easily influenced by the visual. It requires less critical thinking.

We saw a country go mad over this in the last election campaign: "This was said so it must be true. I saw it on a commercial, not once but three times an hour." Eventually political rhetoric became twisted truth and the media capitalized on that rather than challenge it objectively. That quail hunting was the top story in the US last week is no surprise; it was sensationalism and more entertaining than confronting the real stories of the day.

Luckily we in Canada have the CBC to lead the way in reinstituting high journalistic standards. Hopefully the CBC will continue on this path and let the editorial writers editorialize within the objectivity of fact to present a balanced view of objective reporting.

Whatever you can do to curb or stop this stupid "feeding frenzy by media sharks" over absolutely nothing stories would be wonderful.

The Gretzky story was nothing but a pack of salivating reporters with nothing better to do but make it sound like he'd just robbed the bank of Canada.

I will say though at least CBC didn't ride it as bad as the others. Best of luck with the study at least you're not standing still regarding improvements. Good luck and better programming.

With a crockpot of culture(s) from the left coast to the right coast, reporting meaningful news in Canada must be quite interesting. I may be mistaken, but it seems to me that the news programs have to "sell" airtime, column space, etc... much as all the other programming does. Unless that is untrue and made to be obviously untrue, cynics, such as myself, will always look askance at reports in the various media. I applaud the initiative to discover what is meaningful news to Canadians. Now all you have to do is deliver. Good luck , because, as someone famous alluded to, the means of delivery may be more of a message that the content itself.

I agree. The Cheyney hunting accident is not worth more than a footnote. Nor are some other stories with constant coverage on the cable networks, i.e. the Lacy Peterson murder trial.

What's worse is when networks go on for several hours when there is no new news to report. This was evidient in such stories, as important as they were, with Saddam's capture and the Colubmia Space Shuttle disaster. There were hours of coverage with a few minutes of sound and video clips.

Great observations. Right on the money. If only more people in the news industry had your insight, we the reader could accept and respect more of what they would say. To often I have no interest in what they have to say because they are not dealing in anything I care about, or even need to know.

It seem very ironic that the press got more worked up about it than the person who was actually injured in the accident. Most people with any hunting background we're of a "so what" attitude. As a result the presses agenda became so obvious.

Again thanks for you insight.

on your Friday 6pm radio 1 news. your lead item was Canada winning more medals at the olympics, next came news of a fierce storm hitting Ontario etc. and next was a report on the mudslide in the Phillipines. i suggest your story arrangement was very wrong. the mudslide story should have led, because this was a world story in which over 1000 people died. winning medals at the olympics ia a of not huge importance, since many countries are not there, and there is little real competition in a lot of the events. it is mainly rich countries that are there.

I read with interest, but some trepidation, of the intention of CBC News to "to expand the definition of "news" to include more stories that really matter to them," where "them' refers to the public. As I have similarly watched Macleans magazine devolve into a tabloid parody of what it once was (right-wing agenda aside), I am reminded of the pressures in my own business - post-secondary education - to give our students courses that "really matter to them." At the risk of sounding elitist, do we as professionals not have a responsibility to set higher standards than we know the average consumer will demand?

Yes, news,what is it? Anything and everything that happens to ? I am glad you have brought this to the fore, and i ahve noticed a slight change in our average responding Joe and Joelene citezen.. they seem to be paying more "keen" attention and responding in kind.. it can only be a help in solving problems here and in the world. And yes i agree, if that is what you are saying, that governments use whatever, even next to meaningless "problems " to "cover","mask" what most would think are far more important issues, such as people dying needlessly every day. I look forward to seeing, experiencing significant changes in general attitudes of our fellow citizens, which I feel will greatly benefit our society.. so i must thank you and yours at CBC for initiating needed changes.

What most encourages me about your bold new plan for broadcast journalism is its conscious admission of the personal into the newsroom, perhaps for the first time in western history.

You are right in saying that the output of this personal perspective "should certainly not be the media's personal agenda, or the agenda of political or economic elites." However, to be personal is not always to be one-sided, egocentric, or self-serving. The shamanic traditions of many cultures talk of the path of personal truth. This is said to be a way of "gathering medicine" through the integration of inner and outer experiences, so that each individual can draw their own conclusions in their own way. If you are personal in your interaction with the world, you are not just watching it. You are feeling it on your pulse.

In our increasingly complex world, anything that used to be a line is now a smudge, something that so far only our native peoples have been taught to use for healing. So every time we talk about "they" versus "we", we are bound to run into trouble. There is not really any "they" anymore. With our alarm receptors already on overload, “news” is also an overused word.

In this more personal world that is no longer far away, less and less is the news media separate from the general public. Less and less are all those spotlights and megaphones required. Less and less are journalists showcased in fancy television studios. You can’t pack megaphones and spotlights into your suitcase bound for the next tsunami zone or battlefield. The news studio of today is not much more than an office cubicle.

My only concern is with your announcement that many news programmers have been spending months and months cranking out many plans for an already extensive CBC News Study that was published sometime last year. I don’t know what a news programmer is, but it sounds expensive. I sure hope there’s still money in the budget left over for more and more new programs and new voices.

Interesting that this column should appear today. The first story in this mornings' world report was not the 65 trapped miners in Mexico, nor the thousand plus people buried in the mud in the Phillipines, but the fact that the Canadian men's hockey team has managed to lose 2 games at the Olympics.

It seems to me that all news media, including the CBC, need to take a moment for sober second thought before deciding on what and how to publish.

If you can do this, this move back towards responsible, honest journalism, then my pride as a Canadian will be increased ten fold. Thank you.

I agreed with your main point. It is a travesty that most journalists (and, more importantly, their networks/papers) have taken the easy road to filling column inches rather than providing the public with news coverage that provides some real depth to issues.

Having said that, I think your summation was a disappointment. The Western Standard story deserved some attention, but it, too, was not a major story. I can't help but feel that the CBC was a bit too gleeful in reporting this bit of "news", especially if one considers that it may have been a bit of payback for the way that Ezra Levant eviscerated Anna Maria Tremonte and that chap from the Ottawa Citizen on "The Current" last Wednesday when they were discussing the cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed.

Ultimately, I believe that your choice of example did not properly serve the important part of your argument. Respectfully, Gordon Tebbutt

I say, YES! I choose to watch CBC News because it's reporting seems to me to lose the hyperbole of other reporting agencies. It is clear, concise and without feigned drama of other news reports. As with the Muslin cartoons, I find that the reporting news agencies are now choosing to "become the story" rather than "reporting the story"--something has been lost. As George Bernard Shaw stated, "Newspapers are unable, seemingly, to discriminate between a bicycle accident and the collapse of civilisation." Obviously, nothing changes!

I applaud the analysis in this article, and the decisions reported about what CBC will cover in the future.

I hope this means that CBC will avoid US-generated media feeding frenzies like the OJ Simpson trial, or the Michael Jackson trial. Not only were those two non-news, they had zero Canadian interest. There will doubtless be similar events in the future. I hope the CBC has the intestinal fortitude NOT to follow the media flock, and let those who really want the latest on what the defendant was wearing in court today tune to Entertainment Tonight!, which is where such items belong.