Good summary of the business challenges TV news is facing. As much as the CTV Town Hall was really bad (and, I support these things for a living! Who briefed these execs?) one comment that stood out what that CTV was moving to a 'multi-channel strategy' that acknowledges their weakness in capturing a younger audience moving to online sources. Most of that audience probably didn't know who Lisa LaFlamme was until the news hit Twitter this week. I'm old (in my 50s) and I haven't regularly watched TV news in a very, very long time. I can't imagine the desired 18-34 year olds are tuning in!
So -- that's where we're at. And, if online sources were doing a great job of providing news coverage, all would be good. But, what I'm seeing is a huge rise online in punditry and analysis. Don't get me wrong, a lot of this is useful (I subscribe to The Line, after all), but it isn't a substitute for actual reporting. Moreover, it relies on someone, somewhere building sources, learning a beat and -- you know -- doing news reporting that can be analyzed and talked about. Which is expensive. I don't really care if traditional news papers or TV news go under. But, I am concerned about the health of a democracy where there isn't a business model that supports independent news reporting. What's even scarier is I'm not sure a lot of 'consumers' understand the difference between opinion, analysis and reporting and are happy to 'tune in' to the pundits that confirm their existing worldview. That ain't healthy, folks!
I'm not sure what the answer is. Government funding to support news creates a huge conflict as independent news reporting is what keeps governments (and others in power) accountable. But, where's the business model for reporting -- especially the kind of investigative journalism that has so often been really important in uncovering big issues and big stories?
I hope a future report focuses in on the most important aspect of this story, namely, the implications for free speech in this country given the current state of the media business.
The brouhaha surrounding the departure of Ms. LaFlamme will have been a reminder to all who toll in the private sector media that their hold on their position is tenuous and that all it takes is a bad earnings report for their position to be the victim of a corporate reorganization. Loyalty, and fierce dedication to their craft count for precisely nothing.
At the same time, it will have escaped no one in the business that the shining house on the hill, the state propaganda organ, aka the CBC, is flush with cash.
Sign on there and your days of financial worry are behind you. Toe the party line and you can coast to retirement and a lavish pension on a salary and benefits you could only dream about in the private sector.
And no need to worry about remaining on the top of your game. As long as you are ideologically correct, the fail up principle will protect you even as you descend into irredeemable mediocrity and spend your days writing the rank puff pieces that the central committee orders.
But the openings are few and the candidates many.
How are you going to one of the chosen few who gets to sign on and put their financial worries behind them?
By pressing the PM and his Keystone Cops cabinet for answers on the hard issues of the day? By taking at face value the adage that the role of the media is to call the powerful to account?
Or, given we live in the real world, do you stand a better chance of landing a sinecure at the CBC by becoming known for fawning, supine, adulatory, coverage of the PM and his sorry and supremely talentless front bench that would make the reporters at Rodong Sinmun blush in shame?
Could this phenomenon not explain why so much of what passes for journalism in this country is little more than happy talk in which members of the media outdo themselves in accounting to the powerful?
Or the reason that the PM's pressers are solemn, reverential affairs in which the press, on its very best behaviour, gently lobs softballs the PM's way and takes his woke addled non- responses at face value with nary a murmur, a practice that on a recent trip abroad shocked the foreign press?
It is an everlasting mystery to me why the press puts up with the non-answers by Trudeau and his Ministers at press conferences. Would it be too much to ask that reporters refuse to attend these showpieces unless direct answers are given to direct questions? And I don't mean questions like Rosie Barton's in the early days of the pandemic, "Prime Minister, how do you handle the stress?"
And I don't mean questions like Rosie Barton's in the early days of the pandemic, "Prime Minister, how do you handle the stress?"
A true giant of Canadian journalism.
Was it not she who broke the story of Junior's son peeking out the window when his daddy was doing one of his 'I'm not a doctor but play one on TV' schticks in front of the cottage?
Groundbreaking, no holds barred Canadian investigative journalism at its very best!
Terry, you just keep bloviating; it is your one true accomplishment.
I am NOT a fan of your Dear Leader - oh, sorry, reference is to the wrong country? That's right, he is a fan of China's "basic dictatorship." I started to list his other lack of accomplishment but you would, I am certain, feel that lack of accomplishment was a list of good things so let's just keep it civil and you believe in what you believe and I will believe in what is accurate.
Jon Kay talked about this thing on twitter this week
I def get more scoops now that the fed govt is subsidizing newspapers. No one wanted to touch the Marouf story at first bcuz he's a consultant with @CdnHeritage, same outfit that pays out $600m/year to Cdn media. Bcuz I work for an Australian company, I dont have to muzzle myself
So, who goes first? Jen if she develops a smile line or Matt if he loses hair. Oops, sorry Matt. I meant his hair colour changes. We love you both as your are, now and forever.
I hate to break it to you, but I no longer view, listen to or read Canadian MSM. We gave up our cable subscription some fifteen years ago, and have never nissed it. So I was puzzled as to who, exactly, was Lisa Laflamme.
I now get my U.S. sources (New York Times, Wall Street Journal) and U.K, sources (The Economist), with a sprinkling of local news as I drive to and from work. On the other hand, I'm a paying subscriber to a dozen Substack newsletters with differing points of view, and feel quite well informed as a result. (Thank you at The Line.)
I intend to stay far away from Canadian MSM just as long as there is heavy government involvement, whether through regulation or subsidies. I think that both of these imperil journalistic independence. As for the Canadian government's threats to censor my Internet connections, good luck to them. They have to catch me first. WWW isn't the only protocol out there.
Notwithstanding their political differences, all Canadians can agree on one thing, namely, that as a ventriloquist, our PM is in a league of his own.
Take his latest dummy, the one he calls Little Commish Brenda.
Why when he sits that dummy down on his knee and launches into his schtick you would really swear it was Brenda parroting 'No interference' twenty times in a row.
I mean you can't see the PM's lips move at all!
Well, just a little bit if you look really closely.
I have mixed feelings over the whole TV news situation. As someone involved in the energy industry I’ve watched so many good people come and go with every change of ownership or even change in the corporate suite that this hardly registers as an abnormality. Sad but true. As for the imminent demise of TV news as we know it today I have a tough time feeling any sadness. It seems to be the same Groundhog Day rerun every night. Inclusion. Reconciliation. Environmental apocalypse. Wokeism in full force. The final straw for me was the nightly cat videos. If change is to actually include real news and not gospel hour soap box preaching it would be a welcome change. Every evening the formula seems to be find someone unhappy with their often petty first world problems and let them bitch about how the world is holding them down. My fear is they will double down on the fluff. Cheaper production costs than actually covering historical world changing events in the Ukraine.
I’m guessing you know the meaning of the term but to me, Woke is the politically correct tone used in everything that is reported especially related to race and discrimination. That doesn’t make it wrong, it just gets tedious from the continued repetition which was the point I was trying to make. As for the newsletter/report thing, that got attached to my name when I subscribed. There isn’t one.
Yes, I do know the meaning of "woke" (short answer: aware of racism and social injustice, not a PC tone). Except now the word is consistently used as the opposite. As if being aware and possibly involved is a bad thing. No one articulates it though, like they cannot articulate "freedom". Woke is politically correct and it's boring (continued tedious repetition of IDE etc).
Inclusion. Reconciliation. Environmental apocalypse. Wokeism in full force! Each of which is important but to dismiss it all as woke is lazy.
The word fulsome has the same problem. Everyone, talking heads especially, use it the opposite of what it actually means. The best word in the English language we seldom use (actually we do just not out loud everywhere). An adjective, verb, noun, adverb, and most useful is "f*ck" (the * is PC :) It's not just politically incorrect is downright frowned upon. Yet everyone knows, uses, understands, and mutters it every day.
Woke no longer means what it did. It now means that the many ideas, opinions, and hopes people have held are held in disdain. Who needs reconciliation, justice, equality, diversity, etc etc? It's too woke!
TV news? For the most part it's no longer value for money. Local stuff with important non local would be nice but I guess that's not financially viable. But it worked for years. Convenient and reliable. Just not meeting the needs of most anymore. So I expect it won't disappear overnight and when it finally ends there will be a weak outcry from the final hangers on. It's nice to get the weather, latest horror story (it bleeds, it leads), stupid pol action with commentary, sports, and election results all in one package. But we don't even get that any more, at least not well.
I'm cancelling all of my TV today. I've been lazy and should have done so ages ago. Maybe you should too. Everything we need is available elsewhere, even all the woke/non woke stuff.
If you have the substack maybe you should try it?
I haven't seen any cat videos but if I did I wouldn't be impressed and I like cats. Here in the lower mainland, what we get once or so a year, is a mama goose with a trail of ducklings (goslings) holding traffic up in downtown Vancouver because they want to cross the road. Usually 4 lanes at rush hour. Awww...so cute! They have never ever been hit by a bus! Never!
Funny you mention canceling your TV. When I renewed my cable package a few years ago the vendor couldn’t believe that I didn’t take the “news” package. I suggested to her (somewhat cheekily) that it was designed for people who lacked reading skill. I suspect I may have offended. Perhaps I’m showing my age and oncoming crankiness but TV news has been a slow burn for me and I don’t see it getting any better. I do miss real news and bristle at what another reader apply described as more punditry than actual news. The cat videos part was on a nightly segment described as “trending…” something or other. I guess that may be part of their plan to increase younger viewership. More internet content. I remember the “if it bleeds…” quote and there was also one I can’t recall more or less “we need a good fire”. Nostalgia.
Damn! Everything is nostalgia for me lately. I can feel myself about to say, "I remember when...", and I bite my tongue.
We got the full US news package shortly before Trump announced he was running. My husband was from NY and I'm a dual and he wasn't very well so I signed up for a big cable package. I did not foresee MSNBC being on always. A bit of CNN and Fox for laughs and Al Jazeera for outside of the US. And CBC for Can content. CRBC would be so proud of us.
It's funny to think of news on TV at dinner and bedtime. News in mags and daily newspapers. And we considered ourselves informed. It's changed so much in a few short decades I'm always surprised when people bemoan the changes. It will never get better but it will be different. The internet really was the coolest thing ever. The smartphone not so much. Too many silly apps.
Information is important. As is communication and debate. Punditry is necessary but now it implies all the respect of "woke". Cat videos even have their place I guess. (I saw a truly hilarious one but that's one of the billions). Trending, breaking news, likes, and whatever the term is that picks your interests for you based on your browsing history...algorithm something or other, does not really help the discourse. Those who monetize BS also do not help. But censorship will be a big fail.
I've always been a reader. TV has never encouraged reading, except maybe Sesame Street, which was not a given. I read books with US news playing in the background for years. I refused to have a tv in the bedroom. I'm getting old and distracted though. I bought the same novel in two different used bookstores this week. I'll gift one of them.
Chuckle. Yes! A cleansing fire perhaps. Like you reading is my key. When socially discussing television content I’m usually fairly silent as my tastes are narrow and not exactly mainstream. Off piste may be a better description. The Simpsons and Southpark are rarely in most adults go-to entertainment package but I think of TV much like a car chase movie. Pure fun and never to be taken seriously. The lower brow, the better. Honestly it never fails to amaze me that Southpark gets away with what they do but maybe that’s the hook for me.
Excellent dispatch. I particularly appreciated someone finally bringing up that rather important angle to the LaFlamme story - that bit about TV news in a slowmo death spiral, or more particularly the classic suppertime/late night broadcasts featuring an anchor. One of the first things that occurred to me when the story broke was - how much does she make and how much will her successor collect. No proof, but strong suspicions it is for less - a lot less. This does not detract from the fact that media companies seem singularly inept when it comes to reporting on their own companies. The Bell/CTV execs come off as idiots. Especially liked the bit about the VP huffing that she, a woman, would never fire another woman.
"Indeed, more often than not, at least some of the blame is now being put on Ukraine for fighting back in the first place. [...] In this, [Putin is] aided by the both-sidesism instincts of the news media as well as the international NGO community. To see this at work in Ukraine, look no further than the recent appalling Amnesty International report, which criticized the Ukrainian military for taking up defensive populations in populated areas (the Kremlin loved it, of course)."
Add to the media and NGOs both-sidesism, Roger Waters' one-sidesism in his interview with Michael Smerconish on CNN. The full unedited version of it can be found on the Smerc's YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZsRj3_iDfM. Happy to see Smerc push back on Waters position. I love Rogers' music, but question his political views.
Great dispatch editors! A lot more in depth than I was expecting based on the length of the non-experimental podcast edition. Well done.
I believe anything coming out of Russia about as much a cat saying there's no food in the bowl 5 minutes after you just filled it. Yes, I'm sure Kiev fibbs from time to time, but I'll believe them >95% of the time.
I don't think either side deserves to be believed. Skepticism should be the default response. Why would Russia bomb a plant they are in control of? Suppose it's the Ukrainian military trying to engineer a nuclear crisis to get more assistance from the west? I don't know who to believe. Send in the IAEA, let them figure it out. The narrative that "Putin is bad, therefore everyone else must be good" is simplistic.
You're free to believe whom and what you will. As for Putin and Co.,the truth of what they've been up to is crystal clear to see if you have eyes and wish to use them.
Sheesh, anyone with a camera and a bad backdrop and YouTube can discuss anything and boom, they are the news? I couldn't get through 2 minutes of these guys, and I was interested in what they had to say. Bad news.
They aren't the "news" but they're having discussions that I would assert aren't being had anywhere else. Who else is discussing what's going on in the trenches in Donbass, the failure of sanctions, the corruption of the Ukraine military?
If you're letting the presentation get in the way of the content, I'd say you're not truly curious. Look for conversations, not sound bites. Here's a different one:
Is there anyone on CBC or CTV or Global hosting a discussion like that? Heck even they rely on people being interviewed over the internet with bad lighting and backdrops.
We have tough decisions to make, we need to hear all perspectives.
Thanks but no. I can spend days on YouTube and not necessarily come out any more enlightened than when I went in.
If these two had anything useful to offer then I'll simply wait for someone else to articulate it.
Presentation is important. Don't kid yourself.
You may think I am not curious and only look for sound bites but you have nothing to base that opinion on. Of course, your default is CBC, CTV etc.
I do not have the time to listen to all opinions, especially from strangers who have trouble forming complete sentences. I prefer to listen to those who at least know how to form an educated presentation.
There are a lot of people with a lot of knowledge of Ukraine/Russia who has made their opinions, ideas and perspectives available and I prefer to listen to them.
Just because they have a YouTube channel does not mean they are deserving of my time and respect. If you don't understand why that might be I don't have time to explain it yet again.
Putin didn't order anything. At least nothing more than the day-to-day genocidal usuals. Sorry, that sounds so trite.
I know Putin could try for a big splash next Friday because it matters little what day of the week it is. Or maybe he hasn't got much left. He is apparently calling up 130,000+ more soldiers from wherever he stashes them. I'm sure they are thrilled (not).
Russian leadership crossed the line a long time ago and nothing they do surprises me. What does surprise me though, is how many folks here in the west, buy into the bullshit narrative Putin et al are trying to weave as justification for their war on Ukraine.
I think the most misogynistic part of the whole story is how so many women are now ignoring Laflamme's gravitas. And it's sad that so many fellow reporters are portraying her as a weak little woman suffering at the hands of the powerful cigar-smoking good ol' boys. Aside from the fact that these are Disney-fications of fact, they also perpetuate the idea that all women are weak and helpless.
As you pointed out, ALL of the players in this tale are operators of some sort or another. Laflamme has been playing the cards she's been dealt. She was never going to retain her job with the current economics of TV, new producers, and a new direction for news at CTV. But she stayed at the table and found a way to use her contacts, power, and considerable agency to set fire to the building as she left.
Most people who feel they have unfairly lost their jobs dream of doing exactly what Laflamme did. However, how many Canadians have the contacts, power, agency, and friends to make it happen?
I don't understand "women are now ignoring LaFlamme's gravitas". There is nothing weak and helpless about Lisa LaFlamme. Only the jealous have made snarky remarks about the entire thing and that's probably more men than women.
I once was able to walk into my boss's office, in front of a client, slam the keys down on the table and told them where they could put them. I then got to yell at him to move his damned car because he parked me in. He jumped too! It was wonderful.
So, we agree that Lisa Laflamme is not a victim here. She "dropped mic" and walked. Good for her.
Here's a story FROM THIS YEAR to use as a comparison:
My 49 year old sister is in her third year of chemo and radiation for advanced ovarian cancer. She has two teenage children. She works in a box factory in Kitchener and earns $18 for every hour worked. The factory is owned by one of Canada's largest paper companies. Despite cancer and hellish treatments, she has not missed many days of work simply because she cannot afford to not work. Her family is the definition of the working poor. Nevertheless, her employer fired her. This is a quote from her dismissal letter, "We feel with your illness you will be better off just taking some time off to take care of yourself without the stress of working..." Now, you think, well she should sue the pants off this company. But, the reality is, how does she pay legal costs when they can barely scrape by when working? With Stage 3 cancer will she even survive to see a courtroom? How much will the stress of suing contribute to depleting her health even more?
I wish this was the only story I have of grievous job loss, but like everyone else I know, I have lots and lots of them. And, unlike Ms. Laflamme, and her personal team of lawyers, none of the Canadians I know who suffered injustice have the resources or contacts or agency to do anything more than find their next job.
That's the real world we live in. This world is much more than the university-educated. And these are the stories the media should be writing about instead of endless navel gazing like a bunch of entitled wankers.
Jack, I am truly sorry to hear about your sister. On no level is her situation comparable to LaFlamme's. I'm not going to ask the usual questions about unions, and pro bono lawyers, and human rights associations (I suspect they are different in Ont from BCs) and other helpful suggestions that you guys are completely aware of already.
I know stories similar if not precisely the same and I'm sure your sister's is even more complicated and difficult than you outline here.
But LaFlamme is "famous". We aren't. Our stories aren't news. Occasionally someone does write "human interest" stories about regular people. Sometimes they even do a follow-up. Once in a while some story will catch the attention of many and the powers that be bring in a new "Jimmy's Law", or some such, to great fanfare and isn't that nice? No one wants to read a whole lot of hard-luck stories. We already know them. We live them. These stories aren't new or news.
Endless naval gazing of the rich, famous, influential of entitled wankers has always made it to the top of the hour. Amber Heard is still in the news. I loved Aquaman but I still didn't know who she was.
If CTV had allowed LaFlamme a graceful exit none of this would be in the news after a few days. But for whatever reasons they were dickish and everyone who has ever been sacked could relate. Ta da - news! And opinions. She was able to drop the mic after the fact which is something real people seldom get to do.
Being university educated does not mean heartless or callus. Sometime I might share my useless uni degree with you.
I wish your sister all health and happiness. Or at the very least the compassion and care she deserves. Good luck.
I live in a downtown neighbourhood filled with "famous people." As producer on my first play, one of the Great Imposters, drag queen Rusty Ryan, gave me great advice when referring to her adversary who had just won some sort of drag queen crown, "She's only queen 'cause we let her."
Whenever I encounter "famous people" I keep this thought front and centre. I firmly believe that because they can't keep their egos in check, it's up to us to do it for them.
Amber Heard would have saved tens of millions if wasn't for her delusional and unchecked ego.
I was rereading through the comments and came upon your quote, " She's only queen 'cause we let her." It is good. The one that comes to mind is a variation not so much for famous people but for bosses and middle management types, "It's not who you know but who you blow," which explains how they got there, not a suggestion for advancement.
I listened to your podcast & read this dispatch. Much as you seem to be gloating over the fact that you knew the “real” issue behind the Laflamme firing, I think that you also focused on just another tip of the iceberg. I’m of the generation that watched TV news. I ceased to do so when Donald Trump became president. I did it for my mental health. I have not returned. I know that broadcast news is dying.
My response to the Laflamme firing was fear. I am afraid that the hard won rights of women are being eroded. The US has overturned Roe v Wade. In this province, an essay, by a purportedly 20 something year old female, won third prize for advocating exactly the same rewards for child bearing as the Third Reich. I am deathly afraid. My mother received her BA when she was 40 & her MLS when she was 49; 5 years before I received my MLS. I know how hard these women worked to carve out space in the working world. We are more than a receptacle for the penetration of men. But I am afraid that our freedoms may be coming to an end. Rather than gloating about the fact that we somehow missed the boat, an examination of why so many of us reacted to Laflamme’s firing with horror would have made better journalism. If Bell Media had replaced Laflamme with a younger woman, the optics would have been far better. Next time, if there ever is a next time, since there are very few women currently in powerful public positions, a grey haired woman is fired and replaced by a much younger man and there is an outcry, perhaps consider writing about the ever increasing erosion of a woman’s ability to function outside of the home. My mother was Mrs. Paul Langhammer until she began to work and she became Mrs. Birgit Langhammer and then just Birgit Langhammer. I am afraid that we are entering a period of history when women will once again be Mrs. Paul Langhammers. And heaven help us who have never married, never born children.
Just a couple of observations regarding your well thought out post:
There is a serious erosion of women’s rights coming from the left. DEI initiatives have a bulls eye on white men, but quota hirings that pit women against BIPOC candidates will make it harder to earn advancement through merit. (Lisa LaFlamme got the CTV anchor job through hard work and merit. Did she lose the job through diversity initiatives? There is more information that needs to be shed to ascertain that.)
Also, the current focus on gender issues openly mocks women and the critical space they occupy in a functioning world. Birthers? In our rapidly changing world, emphasis is placed on creating “safe spaces”, but women are badgered into accepting the presence of biological males in their private areas and sporting events at the highest levels. The erosion of women’s rights in these areas is lamentable.
So well said...and what a crock. This same load of hooey has happened every year for decades. In WW2, women manned the factories until the men came home and the resultant baby boom kept most women in the kitchen and pregnant. Tho the advertising never showed them preggers.
The 60s, the pill, women's liberation. Women start making strides in a man's world but it's done in a miniskirt. Still — she persevered. Christine Craft, in 1983 was demoted from her news position at ABC affiliate KMBC-TV in Kansas City. She was "too old, too unattractive and wouldn't defer to men."She sued and won but never worked in the biz again. Craft is the first woman I remember reading about this happening. In 1999: Anchor, Janet Peckinpaugh was awarded $3.79 million after suing a network for a demotion and then a firing. Why is it weathergirls are always young, lovely and wear FM shoes and disappear faster than the seasons?
Women have always been up against sexism, discrimination, and scrutiny of their looks and demeanour. One must never become strident or angry you know.
Women are not being pitted against BIPOC (which also includes women). DEI is not a plot against white men (or women). When will men get over the fact that women work too. There is no word that suggests for a minute that LaFlamme was sacked for diversity initiatives. Out of all the reasons put forth, that one is way way down on the bottom of the list. Shed all you want, I don't you'll find anything.
Birthers are people who do not believe that Obama was born in the US (Hawaii). Women are not badgered about letting trans men into the ladies. Except for a few seriously disturbed nuisances (we have one in Vancouver, I have links if you like) across the country. It's a non-issue mostly raised by men who are freaking out and who have been badgering women on every issue under the sun. I guess they don't like the competition. Sports will sort itself out. Do you know when the IOC in their wisdom decided to let women skiers compete in the long jump? 2014, almost 100 years after men ski jumps. Do you want to know why? Because the landing is too hard on a woman's body and her uterus might fall out (sheesh!). In 2020 the rules concerning their jumpsuits were finally changed so they did not have to have extra material over their hips. Do you know why? Think about it.
We live in a sexist world. Like we have all along. Now we are being introduced to some new genders which I really think is a strong reaction to all of the horrible male examples out there.
Have you ever read the old union protest poem "Bread and Roses"? Just a couple of lines that have always stayed with me :
...As we go marching, marching, we battle too for men,
For they are women's children, and we mother them again.
...
As we go marching, marching, we bring the greater days,
The rising of the women means the rising of the race.
Why is always a fight? We are all in this together. Trans people are not just trying to scare you. BIPOC is not going to steal all the white folk's jobs. Women have been fighting on so many fronts for so long that there is no danger of serious erosions that last very long. We persevere. People's rights would be better served if people respected everyone's.
Yes, workplace dynamics like that are very, very common in some businesses. Nearly every business, of course, can claim that appearance counts; the whole notion of "casual days" is because they police appearance. Elaborate apologia for appearance-based hiring of every job from flight attendants to fashion-store staff are easy to dig up.
And, yes, there are tough underlying economic realities in the news business.
None of that *excuses* a damn thing. The attitude of "oh, well, that's the world, it isn't fair, what are you gonna do" ... has been a steady current against which progress has been swimming since "the way newsrooms work" was to have no females at all, or guys who have a "weird, foreign" name like "Sachadina". Most "anglicized" their name, he'd have gone with "Homer Saxon" in 1960; ask Jon Stewart. I did a quick google on this and found two news anchors that are de-anglicizing their public names, very recently: Neetu Garcha and Sonia Mangat; the shift is ongoing, though decades old.
If we can get past anglicizing names to make the audience comfortable, maybe we can get past gray hair. Not without sacrifice: clearly CTV needs to fire this guy, and two more who are innocent, but happen to look like him, because life isn't fair. And pour encouragez les autres.
"We thought about calling him collateral damage. Honestly, he looked more like roadkill after LaFlamme’s video roared past."
Goodness, I enjoy that I'm able to laugh at a great joke inside cogent, reasonable analysis. Best money I ever spent on news. Tell me, did Bill Maher inspire you at all?
I think the horrid disdain and disrespect towards journalists in MSM is Social Media. We thought TV was bad, the iPhone is insane. Something makes the headlines and immediately 100s of people shoot out their opinions. Some are good, too many are dreadful, but all are scrambling for the numbers, like TV ratings used to.
The most celebrated journalists could leave MSM and join in the scuffle and maybe create an interesting informative place—where they would be instantly attacked by those who disagree with everything. Little real debate, less accurate information is the result. It's easier to hate.
In print and tv, and radio too, if a mistake was made it would be addressed, fixed, apologized for and the new corrected info would be on the record. Well, that doesn't happen very often anymore.
Everyone is their own reporter. Or they have their favourites (confirmation bias) and multitudes to pick and choose from. Some of the offerings from commenters here are simply pitiful.
Until the media as a whole cleans up its act, somehow removing the wheat from the chaff, it's going to be a free for all. Outfits like True North who hide their origins and spew RW nuttiness or Twitter and FB who house everyone who has nothing to say but every right to say .
I like a lot of MSM which covers a lot more than just Corp news. The folks who are so hostile seem to have attached the MSM and Trudeau and/or the Liberal as the death knell of our civilization. They are wrong, it isn't. The world is changing just as it always has, in fits and starts, but change it will. In 20 years journalism will still exist but how we access it and what we access is all in the air for now.
I butted into this convo with Pat because I felt he was being too one-sided and too adamant on reasons why. But he does not want me to reply to him. He calls me a gatekeeper. How odd.
Read who you like, whenever you like. Support the ones you like the best. Even with the changing world we need them to help us make sense of it all.
No - I am here because I like good journalism. It does not matter whether it comes from the G&M, CBC or NYT.
I think this option exists b/c as the essay states, social media has sounded the death knell for print media. That is not really a choice - to stay in a dying industry or move to a new conduit.
The Bari Weiss/Chuck Schumer story ran in FoxNews, The Daily Mail, The NY Post, YahooNews, Newscasters and pjmedia and others. Is OANN still out there? None of these are reliable news sources. They can be fun. Guys love The Daily Mail for all the photos of pretty celebs in skimpy bikinis. NY Post is birdcage liner, pjmedia has been around for ages, long-time right-wing crazy.
Compared to BBC, PBS, NYT, WashPost, CBC etc, which can all have reliable info, useful links for more and write good big picture journalism and excellent detailed investigative stories, these posers can't touch them.
I can't see that Chuck Schumer would have time to proof every GOP-involved article. Such silliness.
No, I don't read the Line specifically because the MSM is all about narrative control.
I suppose you could say EVERY story out there is about narrative control to some extent. The MSM messes up on occasion and if they don't correct themselves assorted others will do it for them. Outside of the MSM is where opinions abound pretending to be fact and truth.
Stella is right. We all used to trust and respect traditional media but it's just not as juicy as most of YouTube and the rest. Blind faith in the alternatives is ignorant. Blind faith in the MSM is foolish but to ignore is worse.
Funny how the Lisa LaFlamme comet unceremoniously flamed out just a week after The Line warned us about CBC dominance (by attrition) in the news markets going forward.
Bell Media appears to be downsizing in anticipation of sagging ratings and failure to sell ads to cover the overhead. But CBC? Life is great when politicians continue to fork over hundreds of millions of tax dollars for a product that few people tune into. (The National is a third place holder in the ratings, far behind CTV and Global.)
This brings to mind an interesting question: If a day comes that CBC becomes the only news outlet in the major markets, will anyone be left to watch? Will anyone care, or even believe what the CBC is peddling?
Good summary of the business challenges TV news is facing. As much as the CTV Town Hall was really bad (and, I support these things for a living! Who briefed these execs?) one comment that stood out what that CTV was moving to a 'multi-channel strategy' that acknowledges their weakness in capturing a younger audience moving to online sources. Most of that audience probably didn't know who Lisa LaFlamme was until the news hit Twitter this week. I'm old (in my 50s) and I haven't regularly watched TV news in a very, very long time. I can't imagine the desired 18-34 year olds are tuning in!
So -- that's where we're at. And, if online sources were doing a great job of providing news coverage, all would be good. But, what I'm seeing is a huge rise online in punditry and analysis. Don't get me wrong, a lot of this is useful (I subscribe to The Line, after all), but it isn't a substitute for actual reporting. Moreover, it relies on someone, somewhere building sources, learning a beat and -- you know -- doing news reporting that can be analyzed and talked about. Which is expensive. I don't really care if traditional news papers or TV news go under. But, I am concerned about the health of a democracy where there isn't a business model that supports independent news reporting. What's even scarier is I'm not sure a lot of 'consumers' understand the difference between opinion, analysis and reporting and are happy to 'tune in' to the pundits that confirm their existing worldview. That ain't healthy, folks!
I'm not sure what the answer is. Government funding to support news creates a huge conflict as independent news reporting is what keeps governments (and others in power) accountable. But, where's the business model for reporting -- especially the kind of investigative journalism that has so often been really important in uncovering big issues and big stories?
Tony - you articulated my concerns exactly. Thank you.
I hope a future report focuses in on the most important aspect of this story, namely, the implications for free speech in this country given the current state of the media business.
The brouhaha surrounding the departure of Ms. LaFlamme will have been a reminder to all who toll in the private sector media that their hold on their position is tenuous and that all it takes is a bad earnings report for their position to be the victim of a corporate reorganization. Loyalty, and fierce dedication to their craft count for precisely nothing.
At the same time, it will have escaped no one in the business that the shining house on the hill, the state propaganda organ, aka the CBC, is flush with cash.
Sign on there and your days of financial worry are behind you. Toe the party line and you can coast to retirement and a lavish pension on a salary and benefits you could only dream about in the private sector.
And no need to worry about remaining on the top of your game. As long as you are ideologically correct, the fail up principle will protect you even as you descend into irredeemable mediocrity and spend your days writing the rank puff pieces that the central committee orders.
But the openings are few and the candidates many.
How are you going to one of the chosen few who gets to sign on and put their financial worries behind them?
By pressing the PM and his Keystone Cops cabinet for answers on the hard issues of the day? By taking at face value the adage that the role of the media is to call the powerful to account?
Or, given we live in the real world, do you stand a better chance of landing a sinecure at the CBC by becoming known for fawning, supine, adulatory, coverage of the PM and his sorry and supremely talentless front bench that would make the reporters at Rodong Sinmun blush in shame?
Could this phenomenon not explain why so much of what passes for journalism in this country is little more than happy talk in which members of the media outdo themselves in accounting to the powerful?
Or the reason that the PM's pressers are solemn, reverential affairs in which the press, on its very best behaviour, gently lobs softballs the PM's way and takes his woke addled non- responses at face value with nary a murmur, a practice that on a recent trip abroad shocked the foreign press?
It is an everlasting mystery to me why the press puts up with the non-answers by Trudeau and his Ministers at press conferences. Would it be too much to ask that reporters refuse to attend these showpieces unless direct answers are given to direct questions? And I don't mean questions like Rosie Barton's in the early days of the pandemic, "Prime Minister, how do you handle the stress?"
And I don't mean questions like Rosie Barton's in the early days of the pandemic, "Prime Minister, how do you handle the stress?"
A true giant of Canadian journalism.
Was it not she who broke the story of Junior's son peeking out the window when his daddy was doing one of his 'I'm not a doctor but play one on TV' schticks in front of the cottage?
Groundbreaking, no holds barred Canadian investigative journalism at its very best!
Terry, you have to admit the non-answers from the PM are brutal. I get better criticism rebuttals and defensives here from your takes.
Yeah, but Harper ....
Terry, you just keep bloviating; it is your one true accomplishment.
I am NOT a fan of your Dear Leader - oh, sorry, reference is to the wrong country? That's right, he is a fan of China's "basic dictatorship." I started to list his other lack of accomplishment but you would, I am certain, feel that lack of accomplishment was a list of good things so let's just keep it civil and you believe in what you believe and I will believe in what is accurate.
Jon Kay talked about this thing on twitter this week
I def get more scoops now that the fed govt is subsidizing newspapers. No one wanted to touch the Marouf story at first bcuz he's a consultant with @CdnHeritage, same outfit that pays out $600m/year to Cdn media. Bcuz I work for an Australian company, I dont have to muzzle myself
Sad but true
https://twitter.com/jonkay/status/1561027327525519365?s=21&t=K-VodTzwFF-7QCYHfPRwTw
So, who goes first? Jen if she develops a smile line or Matt if he loses hair. Oops, sorry Matt. I meant his hair colour changes. We love you both as your are, now and forever.
I hate to break it to you, but I no longer view, listen to or read Canadian MSM. We gave up our cable subscription some fifteen years ago, and have never nissed it. So I was puzzled as to who, exactly, was Lisa Laflamme.
I now get my U.S. sources (New York Times, Wall Street Journal) and U.K, sources (The Economist), with a sprinkling of local news as I drive to and from work. On the other hand, I'm a paying subscriber to a dozen Substack newsletters with differing points of view, and feel quite well informed as a result. (Thank you at The Line.)
I intend to stay far away from Canadian MSM just as long as there is heavy government involvement, whether through regulation or subsidies. I think that both of these imperil journalistic independence. As for the Canadian government's threats to censor my Internet connections, good luck to them. They have to catch me first. WWW isn't the only protocol out there.
George
About the RCMP.
Notwithstanding their political differences, all Canadians can agree on one thing, namely, that as a ventriloquist, our PM is in a league of his own.
Take his latest dummy, the one he calls Little Commish Brenda.
Why when he sits that dummy down on his knee and launches into his schtick you would really swear it was Brenda parroting 'No interference' twenty times in a row.
I mean you can't see the PM's lips move at all!
Well, just a little bit if you look really closely.
I just can't wait for the next act.
I have mixed feelings over the whole TV news situation. As someone involved in the energy industry I’ve watched so many good people come and go with every change of ownership or even change in the corporate suite that this hardly registers as an abnormality. Sad but true. As for the imminent demise of TV news as we know it today I have a tough time feeling any sadness. It seems to be the same Groundhog Day rerun every night. Inclusion. Reconciliation. Environmental apocalypse. Wokeism in full force. The final straw for me was the nightly cat videos. If change is to actually include real news and not gospel hour soap box preaching it would be a welcome change. Every evening the formula seems to be find someone unhappy with their often petty first world problems and let them bitch about how the world is holding them down. My fear is they will double down on the fluff. Cheaper production costs than actually covering historical world changing events in the Ukraine.
Two questions Merlin:
What is wokeism?
And where is the 1st issue of your "Pundits Report"?
I’m guessing you know the meaning of the term but to me, Woke is the politically correct tone used in everything that is reported especially related to race and discrimination. That doesn’t make it wrong, it just gets tedious from the continued repetition which was the point I was trying to make. As for the newsletter/report thing, that got attached to my name when I subscribed. There isn’t one.
Yes, I do know the meaning of "woke" (short answer: aware of racism and social injustice, not a PC tone). Except now the word is consistently used as the opposite. As if being aware and possibly involved is a bad thing. No one articulates it though, like they cannot articulate "freedom". Woke is politically correct and it's boring (continued tedious repetition of IDE etc).
Inclusion. Reconciliation. Environmental apocalypse. Wokeism in full force! Each of which is important but to dismiss it all as woke is lazy.
The word fulsome has the same problem. Everyone, talking heads especially, use it the opposite of what it actually means. The best word in the English language we seldom use (actually we do just not out loud everywhere). An adjective, verb, noun, adverb, and most useful is "f*ck" (the * is PC :) It's not just politically incorrect is downright frowned upon. Yet everyone knows, uses, understands, and mutters it every day.
Woke no longer means what it did. It now means that the many ideas, opinions, and hopes people have held are held in disdain. Who needs reconciliation, justice, equality, diversity, etc etc? It's too woke!
TV news? For the most part it's no longer value for money. Local stuff with important non local would be nice but I guess that's not financially viable. But it worked for years. Convenient and reliable. Just not meeting the needs of most anymore. So I expect it won't disappear overnight and when it finally ends there will be a weak outcry from the final hangers on. It's nice to get the weather, latest horror story (it bleeds, it leads), stupid pol action with commentary, sports, and election results all in one package. But we don't even get that any more, at least not well.
I'm cancelling all of my TV today. I've been lazy and should have done so ages ago. Maybe you should too. Everything we need is available elsewhere, even all the woke/non woke stuff.
If you have the substack maybe you should try it?
I haven't seen any cat videos but if I did I wouldn't be impressed and I like cats. Here in the lower mainland, what we get once or so a year, is a mama goose with a trail of ducklings (goslings) holding traffic up in downtown Vancouver because they want to cross the road. Usually 4 lanes at rush hour. Awww...so cute! They have never ever been hit by a bus! Never!
Funny you mention canceling your TV. When I renewed my cable package a few years ago the vendor couldn’t believe that I didn’t take the “news” package. I suggested to her (somewhat cheekily) that it was designed for people who lacked reading skill. I suspect I may have offended. Perhaps I’m showing my age and oncoming crankiness but TV news has been a slow burn for me and I don’t see it getting any better. I do miss real news and bristle at what another reader apply described as more punditry than actual news. The cat videos part was on a nightly segment described as “trending…” something or other. I guess that may be part of their plan to increase younger viewership. More internet content. I remember the “if it bleeds…” quote and there was also one I can’t recall more or less “we need a good fire”. Nostalgia.
Damn! Everything is nostalgia for me lately. I can feel myself about to say, "I remember when...", and I bite my tongue.
We got the full US news package shortly before Trump announced he was running. My husband was from NY and I'm a dual and he wasn't very well so I signed up for a big cable package. I did not foresee MSNBC being on always. A bit of CNN and Fox for laughs and Al Jazeera for outside of the US. And CBC for Can content. CRBC would be so proud of us.
It's funny to think of news on TV at dinner and bedtime. News in mags and daily newspapers. And we considered ourselves informed. It's changed so much in a few short decades I'm always surprised when people bemoan the changes. It will never get better but it will be different. The internet really was the coolest thing ever. The smartphone not so much. Too many silly apps.
Information is important. As is communication and debate. Punditry is necessary but now it implies all the respect of "woke". Cat videos even have their place I guess. (I saw a truly hilarious one but that's one of the billions). Trending, breaking news, likes, and whatever the term is that picks your interests for you based on your browsing history...algorithm something or other, does not really help the discourse. Those who monetize BS also do not help. But censorship will be a big fail.
I've always been a reader. TV has never encouraged reading, except maybe Sesame Street, which was not a given. I read books with US news playing in the background for years. I refused to have a tv in the bedroom. I'm getting old and distracted though. I bought the same novel in two different used bookstores this week. I'll gift one of them.
"We need a good fire", sounds biblical somehow.
Chuckle. Yes! A cleansing fire perhaps. Like you reading is my key. When socially discussing television content I’m usually fairly silent as my tastes are narrow and not exactly mainstream. Off piste may be a better description. The Simpsons and Southpark are rarely in most adults go-to entertainment package but I think of TV much like a car chase movie. Pure fun and never to be taken seriously. The lower brow, the better. Honestly it never fails to amaze me that Southpark gets away with what they do but maybe that’s the hook for me.
Excellent dispatch. I particularly appreciated someone finally bringing up that rather important angle to the LaFlamme story - that bit about TV news in a slowmo death spiral, or more particularly the classic suppertime/late night broadcasts featuring an anchor. One of the first things that occurred to me when the story broke was - how much does she make and how much will her successor collect. No proof, but strong suspicions it is for less - a lot less. This does not detract from the fact that media companies seem singularly inept when it comes to reporting on their own companies. The Bell/CTV execs come off as idiots. Especially liked the bit about the VP huffing that she, a woman, would never fire another woman.
"Indeed, more often than not, at least some of the blame is now being put on Ukraine for fighting back in the first place. [...] In this, [Putin is] aided by the both-sidesism instincts of the news media as well as the international NGO community. To see this at work in Ukraine, look no further than the recent appalling Amnesty International report, which criticized the Ukrainian military for taking up defensive populations in populated areas (the Kremlin loved it, of course)."
Add to the media and NGOs both-sidesism, Roger Waters' one-sidesism in his interview with Michael Smerconish on CNN. The full unedited version of it can be found on the Smerc's YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZsRj3_iDfM. Happy to see Smerc push back on Waters position. I love Rogers' music, but question his political views.
Great dispatch editors! A lot more in depth than I was expecting based on the length of the non-experimental podcast edition. Well done.
I could care less about Roger's opinions on pretty much anything. He's a lousy "activist."
So precious. But I love the music still. But they are all so bloody old now.
I believe anything coming out of Russia about as much a cat saying there's no food in the bowl 5 minutes after you just filled it. Yes, I'm sure Kiev fibbs from time to time, but I'll believe them >95% of the time.
I don't think either side deserves to be believed. Skepticism should be the default response. Why would Russia bomb a plant they are in control of? Suppose it's the Ukrainian military trying to engineer a nuclear crisis to get more assistance from the west? I don't know who to believe. Send in the IAEA, let them figure it out. The narrative that "Putin is bad, therefore everyone else must be good" is simplistic.
You're free to believe whom and what you will. As for Putin and Co.,the truth of what they've been up to is crystal clear to see if you have eyes and wish to use them.
Agreed. I find it helpful to sample various sources for my news diet, eg this channel
https://youtu.be/CRtLnEcQg8E
Sheesh, anyone with a camera and a bad backdrop and YouTube can discuss anything and boom, they are the news? I couldn't get through 2 minutes of these guys, and I was interested in what they had to say. Bad news.
They aren't the "news" but they're having discussions that I would assert aren't being had anywhere else. Who else is discussing what's going on in the trenches in Donbass, the failure of sanctions, the corruption of the Ukraine military?
If you're letting the presentation get in the way of the content, I'd say you're not truly curious. Look for conversations, not sound bites. Here's a different one:
https://youtu.be/EtqJrbTygFs?t=894
Is there anyone on CBC or CTV or Global hosting a discussion like that? Heck even they rely on people being interviewed over the internet with bad lighting and backdrops.
We have tough decisions to make, we need to hear all perspectives.
Thanks but no. I can spend days on YouTube and not necessarily come out any more enlightened than when I went in.
If these two had anything useful to offer then I'll simply wait for someone else to articulate it.
Presentation is important. Don't kid yourself.
You may think I am not curious and only look for sound bites but you have nothing to base that opinion on. Of course, your default is CBC, CTV etc.
I do not have the time to listen to all opinions, especially from strangers who have trouble forming complete sentences. I prefer to listen to those who at least know how to form an educated presentation.
There are a lot of people with a lot of knowledge of Ukraine/Russia who has made their opinions, ideas and perspectives available and I prefer to listen to them.
Just because they have a YouTube channel does not mean they are deserving of my time and respect. If you don't understand why that might be I don't have time to explain it yet again.
Not all opinions/perspectives are created equal.
We'll see how you feel after the 24th. I believe Russia will do something nasty that day and will blame others, as usual.
Putin didn't order anything. At least nothing more than the day-to-day genocidal usuals. Sorry, that sounds so trite.
I know Putin could try for a big splash next Friday because it matters little what day of the week it is. Or maybe he hasn't got much left. He is apparently calling up 130,000+ more soldiers from wherever he stashes them. I'm sure they are thrilled (not).
What's happening on the 24th?
It is Ukraine's Independence Day today.
Russian leadership crossed the line a long time ago and nothing they do surprises me. What does surprise me though, is how many folks here in the west, buy into the bullshit narrative Putin et al are trying to weave as justification for their war on Ukraine.
I think the most misogynistic part of the whole story is how so many women are now ignoring Laflamme's gravitas. And it's sad that so many fellow reporters are portraying her as a weak little woman suffering at the hands of the powerful cigar-smoking good ol' boys. Aside from the fact that these are Disney-fications of fact, they also perpetuate the idea that all women are weak and helpless.
As you pointed out, ALL of the players in this tale are operators of some sort or another. Laflamme has been playing the cards she's been dealt. She was never going to retain her job with the current economics of TV, new producers, and a new direction for news at CTV. But she stayed at the table and found a way to use her contacts, power, and considerable agency to set fire to the building as she left.
Most people who feel they have unfairly lost their jobs dream of doing exactly what Laflamme did. However, how many Canadians have the contacts, power, agency, and friends to make it happen?
I don't understand "women are now ignoring LaFlamme's gravitas". There is nothing weak and helpless about Lisa LaFlamme. Only the jealous have made snarky remarks about the entire thing and that's probably more men than women.
I once was able to walk into my boss's office, in front of a client, slam the keys down on the table and told them where they could put them. I then got to yell at him to move his damned car because he parked me in. He jumped too! It was wonderful.
So, we agree that Lisa Laflamme is not a victim here. She "dropped mic" and walked. Good for her.
Here's a story FROM THIS YEAR to use as a comparison:
My 49 year old sister is in her third year of chemo and radiation for advanced ovarian cancer. She has two teenage children. She works in a box factory in Kitchener and earns $18 for every hour worked. The factory is owned by one of Canada's largest paper companies. Despite cancer and hellish treatments, she has not missed many days of work simply because she cannot afford to not work. Her family is the definition of the working poor. Nevertheless, her employer fired her. This is a quote from her dismissal letter, "We feel with your illness you will be better off just taking some time off to take care of yourself without the stress of working..." Now, you think, well she should sue the pants off this company. But, the reality is, how does she pay legal costs when they can barely scrape by when working? With Stage 3 cancer will she even survive to see a courtroom? How much will the stress of suing contribute to depleting her health even more?
I wish this was the only story I have of grievous job loss, but like everyone else I know, I have lots and lots of them. And, unlike Ms. Laflamme, and her personal team of lawyers, none of the Canadians I know who suffered injustice have the resources or contacts or agency to do anything more than find their next job.
That's the real world we live in. This world is much more than the university-educated. And these are the stories the media should be writing about instead of endless navel gazing like a bunch of entitled wankers.
Jack, I am truly sorry to hear about your sister. On no level is her situation comparable to LaFlamme's. I'm not going to ask the usual questions about unions, and pro bono lawyers, and human rights associations (I suspect they are different in Ont from BCs) and other helpful suggestions that you guys are completely aware of already.
I know stories similar if not precisely the same and I'm sure your sister's is even more complicated and difficult than you outline here.
But LaFlamme is "famous". We aren't. Our stories aren't news. Occasionally someone does write "human interest" stories about regular people. Sometimes they even do a follow-up. Once in a while some story will catch the attention of many and the powers that be bring in a new "Jimmy's Law", or some such, to great fanfare and isn't that nice? No one wants to read a whole lot of hard-luck stories. We already know them. We live them. These stories aren't new or news.
Endless naval gazing of the rich, famous, influential of entitled wankers has always made it to the top of the hour. Amber Heard is still in the news. I loved Aquaman but I still didn't know who she was.
If CTV had allowed LaFlamme a graceful exit none of this would be in the news after a few days. But for whatever reasons they were dickish and everyone who has ever been sacked could relate. Ta da - news! And opinions. She was able to drop the mic after the fact which is something real people seldom get to do.
Being university educated does not mean heartless or callus. Sometime I might share my useless uni degree with you.
I wish your sister all health and happiness. Or at the very least the compassion and care she deserves. Good luck.
Thanks for your kind reply.
I live in a downtown neighbourhood filled with "famous people." As producer on my first play, one of the Great Imposters, drag queen Rusty Ryan, gave me great advice when referring to her adversary who had just won some sort of drag queen crown, "She's only queen 'cause we let her."
Whenever I encounter "famous people" I keep this thought front and centre. I firmly believe that because they can't keep their egos in check, it's up to us to do it for them.
Amber Heard would have saved tens of millions if wasn't for her delusional and unchecked ego.
I was rereading through the comments and came upon your quote, " She's only queen 'cause we let her." It is good. The one that comes to mind is a variation not so much for famous people but for bosses and middle management types, "It's not who you know but who you blow," which explains how they got there, not a suggestion for advancement.
Love the quote :)
I listened to your podcast & read this dispatch. Much as you seem to be gloating over the fact that you knew the “real” issue behind the Laflamme firing, I think that you also focused on just another tip of the iceberg. I’m of the generation that watched TV news. I ceased to do so when Donald Trump became president. I did it for my mental health. I have not returned. I know that broadcast news is dying.
My response to the Laflamme firing was fear. I am afraid that the hard won rights of women are being eroded. The US has overturned Roe v Wade. In this province, an essay, by a purportedly 20 something year old female, won third prize for advocating exactly the same rewards for child bearing as the Third Reich. I am deathly afraid. My mother received her BA when she was 40 & her MLS when she was 49; 5 years before I received my MLS. I know how hard these women worked to carve out space in the working world. We are more than a receptacle for the penetration of men. But I am afraid that our freedoms may be coming to an end. Rather than gloating about the fact that we somehow missed the boat, an examination of why so many of us reacted to Laflamme’s firing with horror would have made better journalism. If Bell Media had replaced Laflamme with a younger woman, the optics would have been far better. Next time, if there ever is a next time, since there are very few women currently in powerful public positions, a grey haired woman is fired and replaced by a much younger man and there is an outcry, perhaps consider writing about the ever increasing erosion of a woman’s ability to function outside of the home. My mother was Mrs. Paul Langhammer until she began to work and she became Mrs. Birgit Langhammer and then just Birgit Langhammer. I am afraid that we are entering a period of history when women will once again be Mrs. Paul Langhammers. And heaven help us who have never married, never born children.
Just a couple of observations regarding your well thought out post:
There is a serious erosion of women’s rights coming from the left. DEI initiatives have a bulls eye on white men, but quota hirings that pit women against BIPOC candidates will make it harder to earn advancement through merit. (Lisa LaFlamme got the CTV anchor job through hard work and merit. Did she lose the job through diversity initiatives? There is more information that needs to be shed to ascertain that.)
Also, the current focus on gender issues openly mocks women and the critical space they occupy in a functioning world. Birthers? In our rapidly changing world, emphasis is placed on creating “safe spaces”, but women are badgered into accepting the presence of biological males in their private areas and sporting events at the highest levels. The erosion of women’s rights in these areas is lamentable.
So well said...and what a crock. This same load of hooey has happened every year for decades. In WW2, women manned the factories until the men came home and the resultant baby boom kept most women in the kitchen and pregnant. Tho the advertising never showed them preggers.
The 60s, the pill, women's liberation. Women start making strides in a man's world but it's done in a miniskirt. Still — she persevered. Christine Craft, in 1983 was demoted from her news position at ABC affiliate KMBC-TV in Kansas City. She was "too old, too unattractive and wouldn't defer to men."She sued and won but never worked in the biz again. Craft is the first woman I remember reading about this happening. In 1999: Anchor, Janet Peckinpaugh was awarded $3.79 million after suing a network for a demotion and then a firing. Why is it weathergirls are always young, lovely and wear FM shoes and disappear faster than the seasons?
Women have always been up against sexism, discrimination, and scrutiny of their looks and demeanour. One must never become strident or angry you know.
Women are not being pitted against BIPOC (which also includes women). DEI is not a plot against white men (or women). When will men get over the fact that women work too. There is no word that suggests for a minute that LaFlamme was sacked for diversity initiatives. Out of all the reasons put forth, that one is way way down on the bottom of the list. Shed all you want, I don't you'll find anything.
Birthers are people who do not believe that Obama was born in the US (Hawaii). Women are not badgered about letting trans men into the ladies. Except for a few seriously disturbed nuisances (we have one in Vancouver, I have links if you like) across the country. It's a non-issue mostly raised by men who are freaking out and who have been badgering women on every issue under the sun. I guess they don't like the competition. Sports will sort itself out. Do you know when the IOC in their wisdom decided to let women skiers compete in the long jump? 2014, almost 100 years after men ski jumps. Do you want to know why? Because the landing is too hard on a woman's body and her uterus might fall out (sheesh!). In 2020 the rules concerning their jumpsuits were finally changed so they did not have to have extra material over their hips. Do you know why? Think about it.
We live in a sexist world. Like we have all along. Now we are being introduced to some new genders which I really think is a strong reaction to all of the horrible male examples out there.
Have you ever read the old union protest poem "Bread and Roses"? Just a couple of lines that have always stayed with me :
...As we go marching, marching, we battle too for men,
For they are women's children, and we mother them again.
...
As we go marching, marching, we bring the greater days,
The rising of the women means the rising of the race.
https://jwa.org/media/bread-and-roses-poem
Why is always a fight? We are all in this together. Trans people are not just trying to scare you. BIPOC is not going to steal all the white folk's jobs. Women have been fighting on so many fronts for so long that there is no danger of serious erosions that last very long. We persevere. People's rights would be better served if people respected everyone's.
Yes, workplace dynamics like that are very, very common in some businesses. Nearly every business, of course, can claim that appearance counts; the whole notion of "casual days" is because they police appearance. Elaborate apologia for appearance-based hiring of every job from flight attendants to fashion-store staff are easy to dig up.
And, yes, there are tough underlying economic realities in the news business.
None of that *excuses* a damn thing. The attitude of "oh, well, that's the world, it isn't fair, what are you gonna do" ... has been a steady current against which progress has been swimming since "the way newsrooms work" was to have no females at all, or guys who have a "weird, foreign" name like "Sachadina". Most "anglicized" their name, he'd have gone with "Homer Saxon" in 1960; ask Jon Stewart. I did a quick google on this and found two news anchors that are de-anglicizing their public names, very recently: Neetu Garcha and Sonia Mangat; the shift is ongoing, though decades old.
If we can get past anglicizing names to make the audience comfortable, maybe we can get past gray hair. Not without sacrifice: clearly CTV needs to fire this guy, and two more who are innocent, but happen to look like him, because life isn't fair. And pour encouragez les autres.
"We thought about calling him collateral damage. Honestly, he looked more like roadkill after LaFlamme’s video roared past."
Goodness, I enjoy that I'm able to laugh at a great joke inside cogent, reasonable analysis. Best money I ever spent on news. Tell me, did Bill Maher inspire you at all?
What I don’t understand is why people have become so hostile to main stream media. Why are journalists treated too often with disdain?
I think the horrid disdain and disrespect towards journalists in MSM is Social Media. We thought TV was bad, the iPhone is insane. Something makes the headlines and immediately 100s of people shoot out their opinions. Some are good, too many are dreadful, but all are scrambling for the numbers, like TV ratings used to.
The most celebrated journalists could leave MSM and join in the scuffle and maybe create an interesting informative place—where they would be instantly attacked by those who disagree with everything. Little real debate, less accurate information is the result. It's easier to hate.
In print and tv, and radio too, if a mistake was made it would be addressed, fixed, apologized for and the new corrected info would be on the record. Well, that doesn't happen very often anymore.
Everyone is their own reporter. Or they have their favourites (confirmation bias) and multitudes to pick and choose from. Some of the offerings from commenters here are simply pitiful.
Until the media as a whole cleans up its act, somehow removing the wheat from the chaff, it's going to be a free for all. Outfits like True North who hide their origins and spew RW nuttiness or Twitter and FB who house everyone who has nothing to say but every right to say .
I like a lot of MSM which covers a lot more than just Corp news. The folks who are so hostile seem to have attached the MSM and Trudeau and/or the Liberal as the death knell of our civilization. They are wrong, it isn't. The world is changing just as it always has, in fits and starts, but change it will. In 20 years journalism will still exist but how we access it and what we access is all in the air for now.
I butted into this convo with Pat because I felt he was being too one-sided and too adamant on reasons why. But he does not want me to reply to him. He calls me a gatekeeper. How odd.
Read who you like, whenever you like. Support the ones you like the best. Even with the changing world we need them to help us make sense of it all.
Yes it is a real question. Canadians in general used to trust news from traditional media.
What makes some feel news they are getting from alternate sources is more researched & thorough?
No - I am here because I like good journalism. It does not matter whether it comes from the G&M, CBC or NYT.
I think this option exists b/c as the essay states, social media has sounded the death knell for print media. That is not really a choice - to stay in a dying industry or move to a new conduit.
The Bari Weiss/Chuck Schumer story ran in FoxNews, The Daily Mail, The NY Post, YahooNews, Newscasters and pjmedia and others. Is OANN still out there? None of these are reliable news sources. They can be fun. Guys love The Daily Mail for all the photos of pretty celebs in skimpy bikinis. NY Post is birdcage liner, pjmedia has been around for ages, long-time right-wing crazy.
Compared to BBC, PBS, NYT, WashPost, CBC etc, which can all have reliable info, useful links for more and write good big picture journalism and excellent detailed investigative stories, these posers can't touch them.
I can't see that Chuck Schumer would have time to proof every GOP-involved article. Such silliness.
Apostate!
No one wants your help Pat. I love it when you guys believe every single word you read. Especially when it confirms your heavy bias.
No, I don't read the Line specifically because the MSM is all about narrative control.
I suppose you could say EVERY story out there is about narrative control to some extent. The MSM messes up on occasion and if they don't correct themselves assorted others will do it for them. Outside of the MSM is where opinions abound pretending to be fact and truth.
Stella is right. We all used to trust and respect traditional media but it's just not as juicy as most of YouTube and the rest. Blind faith in the alternatives is ignorant. Blind faith in the MSM is foolish but to ignore is worse.
Opinions are like assholes, everybody has one.
Thanks for the “transcript “..... bye bye CTV news. Thank heavens there are PBS, NPR, BBC
Funny how the Lisa LaFlamme comet unceremoniously flamed out just a week after The Line warned us about CBC dominance (by attrition) in the news markets going forward.
Bell Media appears to be downsizing in anticipation of sagging ratings and failure to sell ads to cover the overhead. But CBC? Life is great when politicians continue to fork over hundreds of millions of tax dollars for a product that few people tune into. (The National is a third place holder in the ratings, far behind CTV and Global.)
This brings to mind an interesting question: If a day comes that CBC becomes the only news outlet in the major markets, will anyone be left to watch? Will anyone care, or even believe what the CBC is peddling?