Folks, please, we're talking journalism
which is a sub-set of infotaiment
which, itself, a subset of the marketing
The modern, 21st century journalist is the direct successor of the Watkins Man
who used to call at our back door selling liniments, lotions and notions and spreading gossip ~ my grandmother used to switch the radio off when he came by, serve him tea, listen to his stories and buy something for 25¢.
Most journalists - 80%+ in my opinion - are just that. There are a few, a sadly rare few, who really do want to tell us, the public, the truth, as nearly as they can determine what the truth might be, about what is going on in the bigger, wider world, but most are just travelling salesmen, selling whatever the sponsor/advertiser wants sold: soap, policies, insurance, feminine hygiene products, erectile dysfunction solutions
, cars or liniment.
TV is an expensive medium for selling liniment so it needs a constant flow of excitement
excitement - to earn its keep. Controversy is exciting so it must be found or, when none can be found, manufactured. And that's what the CBC did: it manufactured some controversy by recycling
a two year old, already "solved" problem and putting it back on the air when it might create a stir. It worked, so it was "good" journalism - people watched and, presumably, some of them bought Depends
or a Ford Focus
or Preparation H
or whatever else paid for that "news" programme.< yawn >
No need for