Letters from the Editor in Chief

I enjoyed reading your interesting thoughts, written from your rare perspecticve. I generally get what is new (news) from radio, including CBC. I am a critical listener (client?) and I am very aware of the differences in theme, political slant, and priorities of the various news providers. I also get news from the internet (CBC News is my homepage) from a number of news providers. My thoughts are that the 'news' per se as presented is much more about entertainment value than information. The information that I am provided is sometimes of great interest to me, sometimes it is not. CBC's 'feature' stories on radio and TV are the same, sometime of great interest to me, sometimes not. What I find disturbing is the overall media supposition that I will be interested in stories that seem to proclaim some sort of terror, risk or threat to me. It seems to me that stories of political, health, social or economic focus are portrayed in the context of a 'crisis', when no crisis actually exists. The media has a responsibility to report on these issues, but also a responsibiity to report the facts, not the 'hype' or merely the negative potential outcomes. American Media (CNN, FOX News, and the main networks are beyond reason with regards to this concern. The CBC so far does not seem to be. If the CBC is to remain credible in reporting news, then it must remain tue to its history and news reporting methodology.

Just my thoughts, Jim

I will try this again, I hit the wrong button last time , deleting it.
As a regular babbler on here I enjoy reading the writings and thoughts of people and report on issues that matter .
It truely is a conversation on a level that is much more enjoyable than to be told restricted thoughts. its like tapping into the conciousness and interconnecting with others.
Thankfully we live in a era where the evolution of technology allows us to speak freely, regardless of the power trippers in politics and religion. Cause ya know historically how they have tried to control the message by restricting info and rights and freedoms.

And what better way to help others and find ways of getting messages out there through discussions on places like these to also help avoid future wars and conflicts through sort of an exitenstial means.

Thank you CBC for the hours of enjoyment and education and the ability to take part , even as a nobody.
Have great new years all.

One of the most important media changes in 2006 has been the continuing ‘embedding’ of media coverage in the military. The CBC and other Canadian media have been giving viewers a look at Afghanistan through the eyes of our military, resulting in broad Canadian public support for ‘civil rights’ in Afghanistan such as women’s education. As a McMaster University ‘Centre for Peace Studies’ ( http://www.humanities.mcmaster.ca/~peace/ ) points out, the direct support by Canadian forces for the education of women and girls in Afghanistan , means that “Canada is fighting on one side of a civil war.”... and that a better approach would be to “Support a national reconciliation process in Afghanistan” (in regard to internal civil issues such as women’s education).

Canadian media’s bypassing of reporting on Afghanistan’s own internal political processes (the internal divisions on women’s education), combined with the ‘embedding’ of Canadian media in the Canadian military, and with internet and related media cultivating of popular one-sided views of ‘what is right’ and ‘what is wrong’, is leading to the abandonment of our former 'peace-keeping' approach that sought reconciliation of all local factions, and is having us instead seek to directly impose ‘what we popularly know to be right and just’, at the point of a gun. This media shift from assisting peer nations (who may appear to us as 'culturally under-evolved') with their internal reconciliations towards a paternalist imposing of 'what is right' is a major 2006 change in Canadian media, that is aligning us with US practice.

My interest in straight unbiased facts is the reason I keep coming back to CBC for news. Kudos for continuing to push facts (despite the rising trend of tugging emotions) and recognizing the importance of enabling the electorate to make its own informed decisions to maintain a healthy democracy.

Two more items stand out. The media’s role in highlighting the lack of action by our government following Canada’s evaluation of Maher Arar, and the potential problems caused by the media frenzy for presenting immediate news as highlighted by the Myriam Bedard case.

The CBC interview with the US ambassador is a great example of the media playing the role of the official opposition party. It shows that the mainstream media can play an important role when the government, including the elected opposition, does not appear to be addressing an important matter. In the past, many have criticized this type of action by the CBC claiming it is an inappropriate role for media. I wish to thank the CBC for not appeasing those who demand that the CBC stop this type of reporting.

The Myriam Bedard case is a potential example of how the rush to report can create damaging, incorrect, public perceptions. Though the information is still far from complete many people have probably already passed judgment and are not following-up because it is now “old news”. As with many issues, being careful about the first report to ensure it would not potentially create inaccurate first impressions is difficult but very important. The damage done by the creation of incorrect public perceptions is almost impossible to atone for with future corrective reporting. This problem is probably the result of a population that demands immediate results fueled by media providers promoting themselves as the place to find out about things first, rather than as the place to get the story later but understand it best. The CBC and other media can help by being more careful how they first report on an issue to avoid potentially creating inaccurate first impressions.

I hardily agree with most of what the editor-in-chief has said. Since a benevelent dictator does not exist in one human. And since being timely and transparant should guide our thoughts and actions, I find this new method of news gathering/reading/participating refreshing and kind of 'No doubt the Universe is unfolding as it should.' Let's all keep up the good works!

I agree with Ted Lumley. When we send our troops to a foreign country to help that country stabilize and have peace - we must also look at the entire counry and its people. I believe that women must be given equal rights to men. However, we cannot impose it at the point of a gun. Rather than impose I would prefer we take time to slowly educate every segment of the population in the idea that the education of girls and women, men and boys, to the fact of equality is the best way to ensure peace and stability in the country.

I think one of the bigger trends in journalism at the CBC has been the ascendency of the inflective opinion in tone by many of the reporters. The CBC has become somewhat masterful at keeping overt opinionating out of the text of newscasts, instead replacing textual opinions with clear indications of a reporter's views in the tone of their voice. None of this is done better than the growing crop of Margaret Atwood impersonators amongst your female reporters. Carol Off's world weariness is now the norm, with equally languid intonements from the likes of Margaret Evans and Susan Lunn. While a reading of the transcript of their stories may leave one with an impression that they were generally unbiased, upon hearing their inflexion and tone during their stories, there can be absolutely no doubt as to these ladies' views of their subjects, especially if those subjects happen to be Stephen Harper or Israel.

Tony Burman is right! Journalism is in the midst of its biggest shake up since Caxton.

Here, in the UK, the bastion of “real” journalism, the BBC, is now opening its doors to “citizen journalists” in a bid to source low cost material for a proliferation of local radio stations. Similarly the propagation of consumer publications sees the input from unpaid “journalists” as critical to success.

Amateurs have always infrequently “grabbed the front page” with exclusive stories, or pictures, for which they have [rightfully] been paid the going rate. However the implications for professional journalists facing an onslaught of material from “hobbyists” eager to see their name in print has yet to be addressed.

The BBC, and indeed our esteemed leader Tony Blair, openly supports citizen journalism. The former has stated that it would not accept news or pictures from those who may have put themselves in danger, nor will it pay the going rate, or acknowledge copyright. This flies in the face of every professional journalistic or publishing body in the free world.

Where does this leave accredited journalists who have spent many years establishing their sources, honing their skills in particular areas, or risking their lives in war torn locations?

• Will the readers of specialist publications respect the views of an “amateur” over those of respected household names in journalism?
• Will politicians [or even lobbyists] “trust” stories to a total stranger armed only with an MP3 recorder and a pocket digital camera?
• Will TV and radio networks risk the flack that may follow an unsubstantiated report?
• Will the army, or police, allow such unauthorised “reporters” into the “front lines”?

I suspect that the first family of a “citizen journalist” who is “killed in action” may well take a different view when they discover the lack of insurance, or a professional body to fall back on.

Civil litigation may well be the thorn in the flesh of citizen journalism.

Happy 2007. Looking forward to more great editorials next year!

I agree with Ted Lumley's comments regarding the question of our presence in Afghanistan, and would like to add the following personal comments:
One, our present decision makers, from General Hillier to PM Harper (MinDef O'Connor is just a hiccup in the equation) should have done some reading on Afghanistan, from Rudyard Kipling to Robert Fisk's "The Great War For Civilisation". Two, our military's efforts to "win hearts and minds" cannot be done with Leopard tanks but with Massey Ferguson tractors. Present efforts are only rewarded with a cleaver in the skull. Just think, a hundred thousand dollar education and training of an Canadian officer totally devastated by a fifty cent hatchet in the hands of an Afghan teenager.
Three, I do support out troops, not by car bumper logos and red t-shirts from Canadian Tire, but by bringing them home alive for their children, wives and parents.

"When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains,
And go to your Gawd like a soldier."
(Rudyard Kipling, "The Young British Soldier")

That should not be our military option.

You are missing one of the big 2006 media moments and it's particularly glaring in light of the sham trial and subsequent execution of Saddam Hussein.

That moment, of course, is the failure of the big media outlets (including the CBC) to report on the curious occurrence of a war crimes/crimes against humanity trial in Iraq while no such trial(s) have occurred in Afghanistan.

That moment, of course, is simply a continuation of a media performance that is sadly out of touch with real news.

The blogs and independent news sites have dealt with this very meaningful story.

ooops, it's 2007 what's the next news about iraq, america and the tories that will be used strongly by the media. just wait and be shocked.