When it comes to the Ken Peters source protection case, The Toronto Star's Antonia Zerbisias hears a whole lotta nothing from the vast component of the populace we like to call The Public. But I think some of her reasoning isn't reasonable.

An excerpt:

For all the media squawking about what's been happening to Ken Peters, there's barely been a peep from the public.

If there had been an outpouring of protests against the contemptible judgment against a journalist found to be in contempt of court, you can be sure they would have been plastered all over the papers.

But no. Instead, the case of a reporter who could face jail time for not burning a source has been mostly inside stuff.

That despite voluminous coverage, in print and on the air, including news stories, editorials, columns and interviews, as well as outrage from journalists' unions and professional groups, not to mention the Canadian Newspaper Association.

"This is more than an arcane case of interest only to journalists and academics," said a Star editorial on Friday. "Over the years, the Canadian public has been well served by stories that might never have come to light without the co-operation of confidential sources." ...

Zerbisias gave some examples of stories where confidential sources played an important role in informing Torontonians, such as the Star's series on restaurant inspections and stories on illegal slaughterhouses in the GTA.

But eventually, she points the finger of blame at the media itself.

... If the public can't see that the corporate media aren't interested in the public interest, it's because too often they aren't. Otherwise they'd focus more on the stories that further that interest rather than the corporate interest.

In other words, spend more time investigating nursing homes, and much less on nursing the bottom line. Do that and the public will follow.

So maybe, in one tiny way, Justice Crane got it right: We are guilty of contempt — public contempt.

My instincts are to call bullshit on this one.

The bigger problem is that this is an abstract issue to the public. The public doesn't deal with abstractness very well. They're also not so hot with nuance or complexity.

Secondly, if the media spent more time doing very earnest stories about the Big Problems of Society, would the public watch? If they would, then why are the numbers drooping for CBC's The National? In the U.S., why isn't PBS's Frontline the number-one show?

It irks me to no end that the public itself is never the object of criticism by media critics.

I also wonder what the public -- and for that matter, the critics -- mean when they talk about "the media."

Do they mean quality, serious news organizations or do they lump everything together?

Zerbisias wrote:

Consider: All last week, as Peters was enduring his travails, and other serious news of public import was being made elsewhere, there was a lot of Big Media attention on sleaze and trivia, including the trials and tribulations of convicted wife murderer Scott Peterson and accused diddler Michael Jackson.

In Canada or the U.S.? I seem to remember the Bush visit and missile defence getting a lot of play.

If we're going to criticize The Media, let's not effortlessly shift between countries and media types whenever it best suits our argument, OK?

Sheesh.