There has been some argument that people determine what the media reports and covers. Others say that media dictates what the public will read. Here's an email I received: A Harley biker is riding by the zoo in Vancouver, when he sees a little girl leaning into the lion's cage. Suddenly the lion grabs her by the collar of her jacket and tries to pull her inside to slaughter under the eyes of her screaming parents. . The biker jumps off his Harley, runs to the cage and hits the lion square on the nose with a powerful punch. Whimpering from the pain the lion jumps back letting go of the girl. The biker brings her to her terrified parents, who thank him endlessly. A reporter watched the whole event. Addressing the Harley rider he says "Sir that was the most gallant and brave thing I've ever seen a man do in my whole life". The Harley rider replies. "Why it was nothing really. The lion was behind bars. I just saw this little kid in danger and acted as I felt right." The reporter says "Well I'll make sure this won't go unnoticed. I'm a journalist and tomorrow's paper will have this story on the front page. So tell me a little about yourself." The biker replies " I'm an off duty RCMP (Royal Canadian Mounted Police) member on holidays." The journalist leaves. The following morning the biker buys the paper to see if it indeed brings news of his actions and reads on the front page Off Duty Mountie Assaults African Immigrant And Steals His Lunch And that pretty much sums up the media's approach to the news these days. Is it what they think we need to see is or that is what will sell the paper? If the headline had read Police Officer Saves Young Girl would you have been certain to find that on the front page? Media has slowly changed our morals, ethics and how we view the world. What do you think?