A well-written piece but Lord T’underin’ the fundamental narcissism of the media has never been more obvious than with its obsession with this event. Not to diminish the poor woman but she is/was a news - as the BBC has the dignity to describe it - presenter. Working men and women making one tenth of what a presenter makes get disposed of by their employers every day in often despicable fashions. We move on.
I love cynicism as much as the next guy, but our hit counter doesn't lie. Is the media self-absorbed and fascinated by itself? Sure. Is the general public also absolutely fascinated by this story! Yes! Give the people what they want, Peter!
No question. Women seemed particularly outraged to see an icon expelled. Please carry on. Meanwhile, I’ve long realized I could attract more people to a natural history museum by installing a puppy petting pit and a Ferris wheel. I’ll get right on that. :-)
Canadaland's coverage offered the theory that this is a much larger story than the one employee, because part of the problem was her fighting for resources to cover Ukraine. Bell, however, is able to regard the entire news division as "round-off error", and care little for harm to the CTV brand: the endless telecom-billing dollars will still roll in.
More important, to management, is the "encouragez les autres" issue. As they put it, broadcast is the best-regarded, best-paid medium, CTV was the top performer in broadcast, LaFlamme was at the top of the pyramid, in all Canadian news. So if *she* can be tossed out like a used Kleenex, the rest of you had better never talk back to a suit. Whatever your little "news issue": war, plague, revolution, it's of no monetary significance to Bell.
Oh, not at all except for magnitude. When has somebody of this stature been so clearly *fired* before? Normally, one of the many perqs of reaching this level is that you get a graceful and even hagiographic exit.
Journalists wish they could be the "show" in "show business", vital to the brand and money flow, have some leverage on management; this message is "nope, the most-popular among you is still disposable".
I'm choosing to regard it as significant that my DVR stopped recording the show because it was set to record "CTV News with Lisa LaFlamme", and the name changed -- but it didn't change Lisa to Omar, now it's just "CTV National News" in the listings. The new guy won't be promoted as the star of the show; no more stars. Will Omar push back against reduced coverage of Ukraine? I suspect he'll be a good boy, quiet and obedient.
Not to mention that she likely received a very large payout. An employer can dismiss someone without cause, for example because they don't want to color their hair (not saying that I think that was the reason), as long as they pay
Oh ya. People can let people go any time they want without cause. And the fact it only took them six weeks to wrap it all means it settled in at at least three weeks per year x 33 years = well let’s round it off to two years and $700,000.
CTV has many more problems than their squabble with their news anchor. Try watching the giggling morning show where kissing llamas bouncing puppies and other late night comedy routines have replaced the weather and the news. I get better north american and world news on BBC. As far as Bloomberg news?? CTV would be better to get away from trying to fill a 24 hr broadcast and get back to NEWS not repetitive news loops occupying useless airspace.
I'm not disagreeing with the idea that CTV didn't do a good job of firing Lisa Laflamme. It is definitely a mess that they created themselves and they have to own it.
However nobody ever makes a fuss about the tens of thousands of people who are fired in the course of a year in Canada. Are they any less important than Lisa Laflamme is? Will they be compensated to the same degree that she has been compensated for being removed? I believe that they are just as important but because they are not a celebrity nobody cares other than their immediate family and friends. And we know they will certainly not be compensated to the degree that Lisa Laflamme has been. She will definitely never suffer a day in her life. A firing for most people is a major setback in their life and in their financial plans. Somehow that fact seems to be lost in the fuss being made over the firing of a celebrity. Perhaps it's time to end this conversation and move on to more relevant news.
"The world is facing multiple existential disasters and it won’t find its way through without the fourth estate". I think this is the most important sentence in the piece. With misinformation at an all time high, and people making money spreading it, the lack of actual credible news sources might be one of the most important challenges facing the planet. There will still be the "rocket scientists doing their own research", which is just another description of the brain-dead who won't believe anything that doesn't fit their views. For the rest of us......we need this.
Stop already! One in thirty Canadians watch CTV National. Mostly, as you said are old like me. I used to watch the National only because I was tired of yelling at the tv when watching CBC and I liked Llyod. I didn't stop because of Lisa I stopped because they don't care about news just commercial packaging. Plus Tom Walters drove me nuts. Don't we have more important topics than minor celebrities being put out to pasture?
As I said in my comment on the other related post, the bigger issue (to me) is this: the business model for independent journalism is broken. The 'digital' model appears to be slanted towards punditry and analysis with whatever low-cost, quick-to-post 'news' that can be found. Fast matters and emotional posts *about* the news matter -- those get the 'clicks' -- but actual in-depth reporting seems be get getting lost in the shuffle as it costs money.
Right now, there doesn't seem to be a business model to pay journalists to follow a beat, build relationships with sources, and do quality in-depth, independent coverage. That's a problem.
I'd love to hear that I'm wrong, but it's shocking to me how many times someone talks about how they love getting their 'news' online, then point to what is either a clearly partisan YouTube channel, an opinion/op-ed podcast, or something else that isn't really reporting. Guess what -- if there's no solid reporting, all that other stuff won't have good source material to talk about! Then, we're just down to the digital equivalent of a bunch of old guys, sitting at Tim Hortons, 'solving the world's problems' over coffee!!
I also feel the PBS and BBC news models are better - more news and less info-tainment. Even analysis!
CTV sure bungled the communication of Ms Laflamme's departure (for whatever reasons behind it), and it sure hurts Mr. Sachedina's chances of winning over her audience.
Conversely, I liked the phrasing. Because angering as it it is, doesn't it describe the actions of the Catholic Church is there truest most disgusting fashion? I mean if you're looking for an organization devoid of credibility......
I agree. Very disappointing that The Line chose to publish the article with this wording. Frankly, I found the whole tone of the article to be offensive, but that particular phrase was over the top and cruel to those who have suffered child abuse. I hope we don’t ever see something like that again in The Line.
Its ENTIRELY plausible that this a big-ego steel cage match, with each party trying to craft a message. These guys are media, right?
This sort of coverage is absolutely essential. People need to be intelligent, aware consumers of media, now more so than ever. Learn to see thru the spin. I'm glad Andrew and The Line are peeling back the layers of this. If you aren't aware of media messaging (journalistic, advertising, etc.) you're just a goat being led.
I personally think there are no good guys and bad guys in this story, only competing narratives from people desperate to maintain an image.
Also: Lisa Laflamme always looked the picture of a professional news anchor, grey hair or no.
"Either way, watching these two parties slap at each other in the media would be funny if the stakes weren’t so high." Actually, it's still pretty funny and the stakes aren't really all that high anymore. Pretty much for as long as I've been alive, the media (both TV & 'print') has been transitioning from 'reporting the news' to "entertaining the masses" with a dose of "providing enlightenment" (or "preaching") on the side. As far as I can see, this is just another milestone on that journey, and not a particularly significant one at that...
This whole story is mostly navel gazing by an infamously incestuous Canadian media and chattering class. The only issue I see here is that CTV wasn't nice enough and didn't pursue avoidance of confrontation strongly enough for Canadian sensibilities. Otherwise, no one is entitled to anything, and that includes a media platform.
Well reasoned but that you referred to Lisa as a “news presenter” shows that you may not realize the extensive role she and most especially other most senior veteran anchors play in newsrooms in Canada in production of the flagship visual product that has already necessarily been orienting itself towards streaming uses for a decade.
Why not? It's the writer's decision based on the story, audience, and other factors. While we still have a few words that we seldom hear or read, we are all aware of them, so they came up in the lexicon at some point. Are there truly any 'bad' words?
I regularly read The Line. Well, regularly, as long as the topic interests me - which it normally does. When the topic doesn't particularly interest me I typically scan the column and then go to the comments to see what the various folk are saying that might put some context on what I simply skimmed.
In this case, yes, I skimmed. I got to the first comment - Peter Menzies' wonderful comment, when I got there - and I found that Peter was pretty much as dismissive as I of the overall news biz. Matt provided some useful context to "justify" but, truly, it's just show biz and every bit as interesting as Entertainment Tonight which I abhor.
Thanks, that is all I need to say. Skimmed the column, read Peter's and Matt's comments. Out of here; not interested in the overblown topic. Bye. Later.
A well-written piece but Lord T’underin’ the fundamental narcissism of the media has never been more obvious than with its obsession with this event. Not to diminish the poor woman but she is/was a news - as the BBC has the dignity to describe it - presenter. Working men and women making one tenth of what a presenter makes get disposed of by their employers every day in often despicable fashions. We move on.
I love cynicism as much as the next guy, but our hit counter doesn't lie. Is the media self-absorbed and fascinated by itself? Sure. Is the general public also absolutely fascinated by this story! Yes! Give the people what they want, Peter!
No question. Women seemed particularly outraged to see an icon expelled. Please carry on. Meanwhile, I’ve long realized I could attract more people to a natural history museum by installing a puppy petting pit and a Ferris wheel. I’ll get right on that. :-)
Canadaland's coverage offered the theory that this is a much larger story than the one employee, because part of the problem was her fighting for resources to cover Ukraine. Bell, however, is able to regard the entire news division as "round-off error", and care little for harm to the CTV brand: the endless telecom-billing dollars will still roll in.
More important, to management, is the "encouragez les autres" issue. As they put it, broadcast is the best-regarded, best-paid medium, CTV was the top performer in broadcast, LaFlamme was at the top of the pyramid, in all Canadian news. So if *she* can be tossed out like a used Kleenex, the rest of you had better never talk back to a suit. Whatever your little "news issue": war, plague, revolution, it's of no monetary significance to Bell.
I'm confused as to how that is different to what has gone on every day in news organizations throughout the history of news organizations
Oh, not at all except for magnitude. When has somebody of this stature been so clearly *fired* before? Normally, one of the many perqs of reaching this level is that you get a graceful and even hagiographic exit.
Journalists wish they could be the "show" in "show business", vital to the brand and money flow, have some leverage on management; this message is "nope, the most-popular among you is still disposable".
I'm choosing to regard it as significant that my DVR stopped recording the show because it was set to record "CTV News with Lisa LaFlamme", and the name changed -- but it didn't change Lisa to Omar, now it's just "CTV National News" in the listings. The new guy won't be promoted as the star of the show; no more stars. Will Omar push back against reduced coverage of Ukraine? I suspect he'll be a good boy, quiet and obedient.
Not to mention that she likely received a very large payout. An employer can dismiss someone without cause, for example because they don't want to color their hair (not saying that I think that was the reason), as long as they pay
Oh ya. People can let people go any time they want without cause. And the fact it only took them six weeks to wrap it all means it settled in at at least three weeks per year x 33 years = well let’s round it off to two years and $700,000.
CTV has many more problems than their squabble with their news anchor. Try watching the giggling morning show where kissing llamas bouncing puppies and other late night comedy routines have replaced the weather and the news. I get better north american and world news on BBC. As far as Bloomberg news?? CTV would be better to get away from trying to fill a 24 hr broadcast and get back to NEWS not repetitive news loops occupying useless airspace.
Exactly.
I agree.
I don't know about llamas and puppies but the short, repetitive loops are ridiculous.
I'm not disagreeing with the idea that CTV didn't do a good job of firing Lisa Laflamme. It is definitely a mess that they created themselves and they have to own it.
However nobody ever makes a fuss about the tens of thousands of people who are fired in the course of a year in Canada. Are they any less important than Lisa Laflamme is? Will they be compensated to the same degree that she has been compensated for being removed? I believe that they are just as important but because they are not a celebrity nobody cares other than their immediate family and friends. And we know they will certainly not be compensated to the degree that Lisa Laflamme has been. She will definitely never suffer a day in her life. A firing for most people is a major setback in their life and in their financial plans. Somehow that fact seems to be lost in the fuss being made over the firing of a celebrity. Perhaps it's time to end this conversation and move on to more relevant news.
"The world is facing multiple existential disasters and it won’t find its way through without the fourth estate". I think this is the most important sentence in the piece. With misinformation at an all time high, and people making money spreading it, the lack of actual credible news sources might be one of the most important challenges facing the planet. There will still be the "rocket scientists doing their own research", which is just another description of the brain-dead who won't believe anything that doesn't fit their views. For the rest of us......we need this.
Stop already! One in thirty Canadians watch CTV National. Mostly, as you said are old like me. I used to watch the National only because I was tired of yelling at the tv when watching CBC and I liked Llyod. I didn't stop because of Lisa I stopped because they don't care about news just commercial packaging. Plus Tom Walters drove me nuts. Don't we have more important topics than minor celebrities being put out to pasture?
As I said in my comment on the other related post, the bigger issue (to me) is this: the business model for independent journalism is broken. The 'digital' model appears to be slanted towards punditry and analysis with whatever low-cost, quick-to-post 'news' that can be found. Fast matters and emotional posts *about* the news matter -- those get the 'clicks' -- but actual in-depth reporting seems be get getting lost in the shuffle as it costs money.
Right now, there doesn't seem to be a business model to pay journalists to follow a beat, build relationships with sources, and do quality in-depth, independent coverage. That's a problem.
I'd love to hear that I'm wrong, but it's shocking to me how many times someone talks about how they love getting their 'news' online, then point to what is either a clearly partisan YouTube channel, an opinion/op-ed podcast, or something else that isn't really reporting. Guess what -- if there's no solid reporting, all that other stuff won't have good source material to talk about! Then, we're just down to the digital equivalent of a bunch of old guys, sitting at Tim Hortons, 'solving the world's problems' over coffee!!
Gound News provides a good review of bias in news articles ... worth checking out
I also feel the PBS and BBC news models are better - more news and less info-tainment. Even analysis!
CTV sure bungled the communication of Ms Laflamme's departure (for whatever reasons behind it), and it sure hurts Mr. Sachedina's chances of winning over her audience.
Advertisers the night of Aug 18. Pretty broad demographic :
Samsung Galaxy cell phones
Dawn detergent
Subway
Gain laundry detergent
Best Buy
Tim Hortons
Sephora
Schneider's meats
Jamieson vitamins
Hotels.com
Cascade dishwasher detergent
Kobo
Downy fabric softener
Michael Hill
“Kiddie fiddling” is just so offensive, could you find nothing else to describe a piece of our darkest history?
Conversely, I liked the phrasing. Because angering as it it is, doesn't it describe the actions of the Catholic Church is there truest most disgusting fashion? I mean if you're looking for an organization devoid of credibility......
I agree. Very disappointing that The Line chose to publish the article with this wording. Frankly, I found the whole tone of the article to be offensive, but that particular phrase was over the top and cruel to those who have suffered child abuse. I hope we don’t ever see something like that again in The Line.
Its ENTIRELY plausible that this a big-ego steel cage match, with each party trying to craft a message. These guys are media, right?
This sort of coverage is absolutely essential. People need to be intelligent, aware consumers of media, now more so than ever. Learn to see thru the spin. I'm glad Andrew and The Line are peeling back the layers of this. If you aren't aware of media messaging (journalistic, advertising, etc.) you're just a goat being led.
I personally think there are no good guys and bad guys in this story, only competing narratives from people desperate to maintain an image.
Also: Lisa Laflamme always looked the picture of a professional news anchor, grey hair or no.
Or maybe BECAUSE of it.....
"Either way, watching these two parties slap at each other in the media would be funny if the stakes weren’t so high." Actually, it's still pretty funny and the stakes aren't really all that high anymore. Pretty much for as long as I've been alive, the media (both TV & 'print') has been transitioning from 'reporting the news' to "entertaining the masses" with a dose of "providing enlightenment" (or "preaching") on the side. As far as I can see, this is just another milestone on that journey, and not a particularly significant one at that...
This whole story is mostly navel gazing by an infamously incestuous Canadian media and chattering class. The only issue I see here is that CTV wasn't nice enough and didn't pursue avoidance of confrontation strongly enough for Canadian sensibilities. Otherwise, no one is entitled to anything, and that includes a media platform.
I think discussing this in the context of CTV alone without mentioning Mother Bell's current social/political direction misses a few points.
Well reasoned but that you referred to Lisa as a “news presenter” shows that you may not realize the extensive role she and most especially other most senior veteran anchors play in newsrooms in Canada in production of the flagship visual product that has already necessarily been orienting itself towards streaming uses for a decade.
This journalist needs to broaden her sights. Words like clusters… and cock, should not be used in good journalism.
Why not? It's the writer's decision based on the story, audience, and other factors. While we still have a few words that we seldom hear or read, we are all aware of them, so they came up in the lexicon at some point. Are there truly any 'bad' words?
I regularly read The Line. Well, regularly, as long as the topic interests me - which it normally does. When the topic doesn't particularly interest me I typically scan the column and then go to the comments to see what the various folk are saying that might put some context on what I simply skimmed.
In this case, yes, I skimmed. I got to the first comment - Peter Menzies' wonderful comment, when I got there - and I found that Peter was pretty much as dismissive as I of the overall news biz. Matt provided some useful context to "justify" but, truly, it's just show biz and every bit as interesting as Entertainment Tonight which I abhor.
Thanks, that is all I need to say. Skimmed the column, read Peter's and Matt's comments. Out of here; not interested in the overblown topic. Bye. Later.