Letters from the Editor in Chief

i don't necessarily think we CARE about celebs we just like to watch them screw up and stuff it's almost like reality tv it's just for entertainment purposes and boredom maybe with our own lives that we put them up on a pedestal.

Hello Tony.

Nice of you to point out that Spiked Online is a "respected" cultural blog.

I happen to think it is pretty darn good, but it is really up to a site visitor as to whether or not they will lavish respect on Spiked. If you are going to mention that it is respected then you should be saying who respects it (we know you do...or I think you do since you have mentioned it). Your mention is reminiscent of the oft quoted unnamed source.

You have spent a lot of words, since I started reading your column, about redefining news and striking a balance.

No doubt, as you mention, they are challenges for journalism. But the problem with journalism is not Beckham coverage. The challenge for journalism is to rid itself of the nauseating focus on objectivity, an objectivity that is in place despite the half-truths, innuendo and bald-faced lies that come from the well-known.

Francis Penny

Genuine public interest in Posh & Becks? No, you can't really claim that in Canada.

This is one of the reasons I now seldom watch the National even when in Canada. Who wants to sit through such rubbish. In fact the last time I recall actually watching The National it was for something about aviation technology but I decided that it was not worth watching a five minute filler about some ridiculous hockey player and wandered back to real journalists like Robert Fisk. On the web I can just ignore such flackery.

Shame on you nonetheless. This pursuit of the supermarket tabloid audience is an immense error of editorial judgement, the more painful because I recall when the CBC did relatively little of it, concentrating on matters of rather more substance. Surely you remember your days in Ethiopia. Compare, contrast, and weep.

Cheers,
dba

I couldn't agree more with Boorstin! What has this world come to when a 17 year old or younger receives more press and attention (you can interject adoration) than our world leaders! I personally think it is disgraceful that this occurs. I also find it disgraceful that millions of people tune in wolrdwide for these "awards" programs, and all they focus on is what the "stars" are wearing and "who came with who". You don't see the real world individuals coming together to award themselves for doing their jobs!

Last night's National News, January 17th., was an example of CBC's excellent programing - interesting and informative. CBC's journalists are, I think, some of the very best, bringing us news and information that is of real value.

All is not well in a world where the number one entertainment show(American Idol)soul purpose seems to be to satisfy the hunger of millions of viewers who tune in and get off on watching young contestants crushed and humiliated as they have their hopes and dreams shattered in the most degrading fashion. Shameful

The problem is not that news organizations focus too much on celebrities. It's that news organizations have become something they were never supposed to be. They have become information organizations. There does not seem to be such as thing as journalistic integrity anymore. CBC is not necessarily a culprit in this and I believe this is because of continued public ownership. That ownership gives your organization some public responsibility. However, when the Nancy Grace's of the world can now be called credible journalists, something is drastically wrong. Our on demand world is being fed by dime store journalism and the invasion of people's private lives. Celebrities are exactly that, private citizens. They have their public (work) life and their private lives. David Beckham being traded and bringing a higher profile to soccer in North America is a newsworthy story and of interest to sports fans. It is something important to an established demographic. But Paris Hilton going to the bar on friday night and making an albeit interesting home video isn't news. Yet, it was the biggest news story everywhere when it happened. That's not journalism, it's tabloid. It belongs on the rack at Safeway beside the story about the man in Oklahoma having alien triplets. It's kind of a double edged sword really. I guess that one could argue more people are reading this stuff so it is helping more people become literate. The problem is that it makes them dumber at the same time.

That's my two cents, it's free.

You are still generally doing well in the area of news. That you led with the Beckham story the other day I would dismiss as an unimportant anomaly, except that you have slipped so alarmingly in other programming areas (Norah Young to Suk Yin Lee, Bill Richardson to "Free Style", "Simply Sean", the giving over of Radio Two almost completely to light eclecticism) opting for the shallow and frivolous because you seem to believe that that is what the young urban listener wants. It's as if you have decided that there is no future in the thoughtful listener, that the future lies rather in those who are after light entertainment only. In the long run, this does not bode well for the future of CBC News, and as you risk losing one audience with no guarantee (and I would say little likelihood) of gaining another, this policy bodes ill for the corporation as a whole.

thre are two types of people in this world, bored people and curious people. The bored watch FOX, Global TV and the curious listen to CBC radio. Keep up the great work you guys.

I suppose many of the same comments could be directed towards Sports news vs politics, international affairs, business etc. Sports, too, is a diversion and garners and incredible amount of coverage. Doesn't seem to endure the same critiques though. Why?

Additionally, fyi, I have access to the AP newswire, the world's largest. A quick check shows 29,366 stories in the following categories: US, International, Business, Politics & Sports. Entertainment is 940 or 3% of the total. I don't think that's overdone.

The era of news emanating from true journalism disappeared in the 1960s. It is after this period that news started being treated as a commodity and anything worth reporting got reported for the sake of increasing advertisement revenue. I blame the competition between TV and print media for this. In the 1960s Vietnam brought "news" from the war in a way that appealed to consumers, something that newspapers could not, so they started looking for anything to fill their pages. The vicious cycle began and here we are 45 years later.

Perhaps the most egregious example of the info-tainment cult of celebrity phenomenon in Canada is the show "E Talk Daily" on CTV. Just hearing the sound of Tanya Kim's voice elicits a Pavlovian gag response. Entertainment is a part of our culture and is therefore a legitimate source of news. But this program's most in-depth coverage consists of the dangerously giddy David Giammarco gushing and twittering as some actor whose "Canadian connection" is a third cousin attending college in Guelph mumbles mind-bending revelations like, "Canada is nice. I like Canada."
Scintillating.
Thank God for the CBC. But remember this. The day you hire launch an info-tainment show hosted by the embarrassingly narcissistic child of a former Prime Minister is the day I stop watching.

The Brian Allardice comment expresses my sentiments exactly, and I believe that much of today's television is a great wasteland.
The populace needs to be entertained, and turns away from items such as the "Doomsday Clock", ticking towards our demise. That issue, and other depressing news about world conflict is rejected by the masses and replaced by more palatable items such as
"Celebrity Journalism"

z

engendered by such pronouncements as the "Doomsday Clock" ticking away towards our demise.

Are editorials like this supposed to excuse the CBC for covering celebrity news to the extent that it does? If you thought the National was bad in that respect, try watching The Hour...

As a young person, I find it insulting when news editors assume that the way to engage us is to run more stories about celebrities. Maybe the trivialization of news is precisely WHY some of us are looking elsewhere. That's true in my case, at least.

That said, I still enjoy CBC News. But it's really frustrating to read columns like this one on the websites of big Canadian and US netowrks because they smack of hypocrisy: the problem of trivialization is acknowledged but nothing is ever done about it.

Indeed, Mr. Burman needs to take a position rather than simply saying "I leave it to you to assess how we're doing." He said nothing positive about the encroachment of trivia on the news. Clearly he thinks it's a problem. So why not come right out and say: "We're taking a stand against this"?

Perhaps Mr. Burman is just as hungry for ratings as those he criticizes.

On January 11, 2007 the lead story—the “front-page headline”—on CBC Radio’s The World at Six was about a soccer player signing with a new club in America. Canadians who tuned into CBC for the news that night were treated to a gratuitous riff from David Beckham’s Spice Girl spouse.
This trivialization of the news is a grave disservice. CBC newsreaders should not sign off with “And that’s the news.” They should say, “And that’s the CBC ‘news’.” The CBC news is not the news. It’s some very dubious subset of the news.
I was one of the many Canadians not to applaud when the "terrorists" plan to blow up the CBC was foiled. Someone should alert the RCMP that the CBC has been hijacked.
CBC’s desperate appeal to a younger demographic comes at the expense of excluding every other demographic. The vast majority of CBC programming seems to be aimed at and produced by vapid, semiliterate juveniles. Definitely Not the Opera used to be confined to Saturday afternoons. Now it's 24/7.
Abysmal lapses in taste and judgment abound. We have traded Peter Gzowski for Jian Gomeshi. Someone at CBC must have realized that it is cheaper to spin CDs that to provide intelligent content. The old guard—the fuddy-duddies who could string a sentence together—seems to have been retired. Instead, we get breathless young men and women whose grasp of grammar, idiom, and things that matter is tenuous at best. One of CBC’s few competent journalists, Anthony Germaine, was "promoted" to China, where he now reports on fertility rates and birth defects in Siam.
What have we done to deserve this?
Yours in despair,
Geoffrey Pounder

The news of celebrities supposed to be on specific programs and not on the national. In my opinion the first step you should take is banning the ads in the CBC. The influence of the ads’ money is directing what kind of news or programs you put on your screen. The news of celebrities is attracting a stake of the Canadians but not the majority. You do not rely on the ads money. You have your own sources. When you cancel the ads policy; you will be in a position to innovate serious new strategy for the majority of the Canadians.

Mr. Burman I think your column touches a sensitive issue for many as witnessed by the feedback above. I don't really care about the celebrity news myself, but I want to point out that not all celebrities are doing bad things or are mindless idiots - witness Bono from U2 and the efforts of George Clooney about Darfur. Is the media suppose to ignore them as well because it's celebrity journalism.
I am a big fan of both The National and The Hour because both give me something different and I understand the difference, I don't watch Strombo for coverage of Parliament, but some of his subjects are interesting and to say he's a flake is very unfair.

I'll leave you with what I think is the greatest quote about journalism I've ever heard. If you can guess who said it I will be very impressed. You one hint is it this quote comes from a semi-famous newspaper publisher.

"Journalism is all about giving the people what they want along with a little bit of what you know they need."

If that doesn't sum up news today, I don't what does.....

The CBC is in a tough spot. As our national broadcaster it has a mandate to broadcast to the public at large. However, due to the fracturing and hyper-specification of news, capturing a "public at large" audience is almost next to impossible.

this is not the CBC's fault. 15 years ago, if I wanted to hear the sports scores I would have waited 20 minutes through the local news, national news, and weather on the 6 o'clock news broadcast before getting my sports scores. Now, I get them in real time on my blackberry from ESPN. How is the CBC supposed to compete with that?

Because people can get exactly what they want on-demand now, it is virtually impossible for the CBC to keep a captive audience in front of their prime-time news broadcast. In the 1950's, when the CBC was the only television channel available in many homes, they didn't face this gargantuan challenge.

Tony, your inclusion of the Beckham announcement as a possible example of celebrity journalism is way off the mark.

The Beckham story is big news here mostly because of its potential impact on soccer in North America. That is a big sports story, and maybe a big culture story too.

If the story focused on what Posh was wearing, or how many girls fawned over Becks at the news conference, that's celeb journalism. But if it's about the size of the contract, the impact on the league and whether North Americans will buy it, that's entirely legitimate.

What's more, you belong to a corporation that has paid good money to secure soccer rights in an effort to attract new audiences. This announcement could have a direct impact on that purchase.

Tony, You are excellent at provoking whichever topic you need input for and I often wonder if you put all these great insights to good work!
Now, I don't know about the rest of you but when I really get "in-depth" with the CBC websight it takes alot longer than the time line of the national to read what's going on around the world.
If you want the quick time version of the news watch TV.
Real journalism was meant to be read that is why it was written!

Bite the bullet. Face the fact that CBC is not going to dominate the ratings. Nor should it. Your mandate, in my opinion, is to do good jounalism for the intelligent, mature audience that has traditionally depended on CBC for its information about Canada and the world. Getting rid of the ads would go a long way to restoring confidence in mother corporation as well.

Mr. Burman, aren't you presumably responsible for leading with the Beckham story? Although your editorial is wordy, it fails to advise us why you, as the Editor in Chief, chose to air it. Reading between the lines, marketing won over substance.

Contrary to your assertion that the challenge for the CBC is to broaden its definition of news, I submit that you may need to broaden your perspective of who your audience is. We are the proud stakeholders of the CBC and want our news substantively consistent, or not at all. Celebrity has its place, but it shouldn't cause the CBC to become unbalanced, not if it were firmly anchored in who and what it is, a voice for the people of Canada.

Granted, staying in balance is an art form, requiring constant adjustment as the winds of change blow into ones life. What everyone wants is news that does not stir up the demon winds and unfortunately, what everybody needs is those very winds to propel us into action. People navigate the airwaves for news relevant to that individual, when they are ready to receive it.

Lately, I have noticed a lack of journalistic depth. This past week the Conservatives got air time for environmental spending initiatives which were cut from the Liberal budget and now reinstated. The piece danced around the gossipy political implications, but did not provide details. If CBC is the voice of the people, then the story ought to be how it affected the people those programs left unfunded for a year. Otherwise, it is just hot air.

Check it out. Was there more attention to detail given to the Beckham story, or environmental issues? While you are at it, perhaps review your past editorials and their respective responses for the many suggestions that you have already received.
Please report back to us regarding which of them you could implement, why and why not, as well as respond to the praise and criticism you have received. Then we, the audience, could properly assess how you are doing.

Good morning,

In the underdeveloped countries, the undemocratic rulers want to make their people busy with certain news, so the people do not have the means to know, then to criticise the government in the serious political matters. The easiest and continuous events are the sport, especially the soccer. The television and the press used to go to the smallest details which excite the peoples then divide them. Also there are the celebrities as well. But the celebrities matter is not excited like the sports.

In North America the politicians and some special interest groups, want to divert the people from knowing what is going on around them. They provide them with tons of sports and celebrities news through the media. We have lot of silly productions of that kind. Even they use the crimes like the trial of O. j. Simpson. (I hope the CBC will not use the trial of Pickton in the same way.)

If we look the result of this policy we find most of the American peoples know in detail the events of the Simpson’s trial; When 30% of them do not know the name of their president!!!

Finally, I suggest to the CBC when there is an event, do not just bring one from the ruling party and another from the opposition (with and against); Instead put more critics from the independent analysers. In this way you enrich the conversation and encourage more independent to join the debates.

The foregoing hodgepodge of opinions and reactions guarantees that Mother Corp(se) (our self-styled 'public broadcaster' - "public" in this case = unwillingly funded by the taxpayer) will go on doing whatever she jolly well pleases. And that means settling for the ever-lower 'common denominator' - and to Hell with the few who, upon the long ago, used to turn to the CBC for (real) news and (meaningful) analysis. Leading the national radio news with the Beckham 'story' seen as objectionable? Stay tuned for much, much worse to come. Music on Radio Two considered too "eclectic" (and that's far, far too kind) right now? Stay tuned for the 'innovative' dumbing-down that will descend on us on March 19th! After that date, however little may be of acceptable quality today will seem like a rapidly fading dream. The question is: will there ever arise a will (public and political) in this country to finally PULL THE PLUG ON THE CBC?! (Thanks - I know the answer....)

Celbrity journalism is the bain of my existence. A little over dramatic maybe but I hate it all the same. While people read of what jen Aniston had to eat for breakfast and who paris hilton is screwing today stories like massacres in Rwanda and Yugoslavia go untold for years. Journalists have a responsibility, i fear too many of them have forsaken that in favour of good rating stories and sensationalism. Like most things in society news has been dumbed down to the lowest common denominator.

I hate to comment twice in the same thread, but I see that the so-called "Super Bowl" made it as a home page story. This is not news, this is advertising. You are the Canadian public broadcaster; who the hell cares about some ridiculous American commercial scam? On the other hand, stories that did not make the home page at this pass chez vous range from "Surge in Bird Flu" (The Grauniad et al.), "135 Killed in Baghdad" (The Independent & Los Angeles Times), "Iranian Scientist Assassinated by Mossad" (London Times, Haaretz), "340,000 trapped by Jakarta Floods" (Le Monde), "India, China will Alter Global Income Balance" (Times of India), "Dutch spammer fined US$97,000 for sending 9 billion unwanted emails" (Pravda), whatever, &c. You are the editor, you have done internationally renowned work. Now I know time zones can be tricky (Get tomorrow's news today) but, really, should the CBC really be shilling for the NFL? If the NFL wants exposure let them place ads or buy time on the shopping channel. It is not the CBC's mandate to promote this American nonsense; it is your job to prevent such errors.

Cheers,
dba

Good day. Celebrity journalism is indeed quite a niche. I actually have a little experience being a celebrity. This is a humorous story. I have the unfortunate circumstance that I look like a specific rock star. So much so that I've been molested pictures, autograph requests, and other common celeb requirements. At first I thought it was entertaining, but I had an experience in Las Vegas that actually scared me. The crowd was getting so large that I had trouble escaping. I’ve got many stories regarding this. From free meals, to being chased down the street. Luckily my wife has arranged it that I meet this gentleman. I think it will be very revealing. So, I think society actually breeds this so that coverage is so necessary for journalists to cover it. Unfortunately some journalists take it too far. I say this from experience. Celebrities may revel in some of it, but it gets out of hand.

Many Thanks

Doppelganger