The brouhaha over Dick Cheney’s hunting accident did some collateral damage. Why, critics asked, don’t the media focus on more consequential questions that actually affect people’s lives?

It’s a good question, and here’s a partial answer: The media do. Despite the feeding frenzy over one misplaced shot, there has been excellent, vital First Amendment reporting in the U.S. media in recent months, some of it produced at great risk to personal safety in Iraq.

Unfortunately, that reportage gets thrown into the same barrel with the wiseacre talking heads who show up on TV in hunting orange and wouldn’t know birdshot from bird feathers. Such is the price of a free market of information.

Diligent, tough reporting has pushed the debate over warrantless wiretapping and congressional ethics scandals to the front pages. The media have endured deserved barbs for the unasked questions leading into the war in Iraq, but the reporting on the war since the invasion has widely vetted the strength and roots of the insurgent challenges. And as irresponsible and wrong as they sometimes can be, bloggers have from time to time pushed questions to the forefront that would have been buried a generation ago.

Yet there are two essential questions of the moment that are not being asked nearly loudly enough. President Bush’s fundamental shifts in rhetoric in 2006 have invited both.

Question 1: If we are “addicted” to Mideast oil, and “we have to do something about it now,” as Bush says, then is everything on the table – including a substantial increase in the gas tax Al Gore talked about and Bush ridiculed in 2000?

In Milwaukee this week, Bush noted the significance of the fact that he, a Texas oilman, would say the United States is addicted to oil.

“I mean it because it is a true fact,” he Bush said.

Does Bush’s sense of urgency go beyond technological advances? Can we innovate ourselves out of this crisis or should government invoke behavior-changing actions – including higher taxes on consumption or higher mileage standards for automakers – in order to decrease demand? Both have been resisted by this administration. Should the new urgency you talk about leave any solution off the table?

Question 2: In the war against Islamic fundamentalism, are we losing on the information front – the battle for hearts and minds?

When cartoons spark global protests and the protesters chant Osama bin Laden’s name, you get a troubling answer.

Bush is trying. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is asking for millions to help nurture a democracy movement in Iran. In recent speeches, Bush has tried to speak directly to the people of Iran. He has entrusted the handling of information diplomacy to longtime aide Karen Hughes.

But for the most part, his administration continues to lament the challenges long after the U.S. lost the world’s goodwill in the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Isn’t it time to stop talking about the obstacles and to start putting the full force of the most image-conscious, advertising-savvy country in history behind this vital front? And if the government can’t or won’t do it, should Madison Avenue and Hollywood step in?