Where’s Bobby? (part II)

Last week the president finally spoke up in the G&M newspaper. He sent out a flyer, too. I waited for more. I think that was it.

I hate placing blame and finger-pointing. But for this fiasco I have to place the blame squarely, unequivocally, and soundly on the shoulders of the president. His job is to keep this place running. That’s what he gets paid to do. Part of that means dealing with labour unions.

That the CBC is broken means that he has failed, pure and simple.

That the CBC is becoming more irrelevant by the second means that the damage may be permanent.

Here’s another clue: if everyone is saying: “I hope he knows what he’s doing” out loud, you’re either a visionary, or going the wrong way. By now it’s clear to all of us that it’s the latter.

There is nothing necessarily wrong with a bureaucrat. As long as he does his job. But this one is so creatively bankrupt, so mistrusted, so disconnected, and so discounted by his own people that he is dead weight. We needed a leader, but they gave us luggage.

If the history of the CBC has taught us anything, it is that programming – or ‘content,’ as they call it now – should always come first. It is the president’s job to keep the plumbing going while the rest of us make stuff. Presidents that failed to grasp this were ultimately bad presidents.

So I’m begging the Prime Minister to get rid of this president and send us a new one. Send us a journalist. Barring that, send us one with real programming experience. Unlike the current president, he or she should own a computer. Third choice is a bureaucrat with balls and a clue.

Or, best of all, let us pick.

I said before that I think Bobby is intelligent. That’s true. But Alphonse Ouimet was a goddamn genius and he still shut down This Hour Has Seven Days. He just didn’t get it.

This guy doesn’t, either.

44 comments:

  1. Anonymous
    Posted September 13, 2005 at 7:19 am | # | Reply to this masterpiece

    Perhaps the NPR model could be used where the listeners pay themselves for the service , but as it is now the CBC is just useless they really need to get rid of all the left wing elitists.

  2. Anonymous
    Posted September 9, 2005 at 10:16 pm | # | Reply to this masterpiece

    Without a non-commercial balance to the overwhelming culture of consumerism that is prevalent in the US and becoming more so in Canada, we are all doomed to more “idol” shows and Jerry Springeresque smack downs. I for one don’t want to watch or listen to a show and actually be stupider for the experience. I am willing to ante up more of my tax dollars to do it. Bring the CBC back and make IT healthier. We’ll all be better off.

  3. Anonymous
    Posted September 9, 2005 at 6:10 pm | # | Reply to this masterpiece

    I think the CBC should be shut down and the money given to Medicare. Think of all the waiting lists that could be shortened with an extra $1 billion dollars a year. The average nurse’s salary was $51,800 (http://tinyurl.com/clbbf). That would give Canada approximately 19,300 more nurses for Medicare.

    If you had to choose between the CBC and private medical system or no CBC and Medicare what would you do? Our current system is unconstitutional according to the charter of rights and Supreme court. The government has to use it’s scarce resources wisely.

  4. Anonymous
    Posted September 7, 2005 at 7:42 pm | # | Reply to this masterpiece

    I have not watched the CBC in three years, nor listen to the CBC on the radio, and I have not used the CBC web site. I have programmed the TV and the preset radio stations to skip the CBC. To block the CBC on your computer there is a file called “hosts”, insert the line:

    127.0.0.1 http://www.cbc.ca

    I used to get mad at the bias the CBC has, now I just ignore it.
    I only wish I could get my taxes back.

  5. Anonymous
    Posted September 7, 2005 at 6:36 pm | # | Reply to this masterpiece

    Stephen Harper does more need to be said?

  6. Anonymous
    Posted September 7, 2005 at 5:46 pm | # | Reply to this masterpiece

    Why is the CBC so biased, you would think a publicaly funded network would give both sides of the story, why is it allowed to be so completly dominated by the left?

  7. Anonymous
    Posted September 7, 2005 at 2:45 pm | # | Reply to this masterpiece

    that’s the thing with cbc haters. they are either a) obsessed with the cbc to the point that they probably become regulars viewers and listeners or b) criticizing programming that they haven’t listened to in years because they hate the cbc so much.

    there are some legitimate critiques of the cbc out there and we should listen to those closely.

    but, the vast majority are just blowhards who need something to rant about and don’t know the difference between a strike and lockout.
    we shouldn’t waste our time acknowledging that.

    guess i’ll take my own advice and end it there.

  8. Anonymous
    Posted September 7, 2005 at 1:53 pm | # | Reply to this masterpiece

    For someone who didn’t notice we were on strike ( read locked out) , you seem to have a keen enough interest in the CBC to be reading cbcunplugged and the blogs.

  9. Anonymous
    Posted September 7, 2005 at 12:51 pm | # | Reply to this masterpiece

    The CBC is on strike??

    Oh, I didn’t notice.

    Who cares!!

    Maybe the money can be put to GOOD use!!

    Horny Toad

  10. Anonymous
    Posted September 7, 2005 at 7:52 am | # | Reply to this masterpiece

    So ‘poopy and yucky’ isn’t good enough? Ok, let’s look at that.

    Let’s look at perhaps the most fundamental reason for this lock-out; how the corporation doesn’t want to be on the hook offering jobs for life.

    I’ve also read how the corp is hanging us out because they need ‘flexibility.’

    What a load of crap.

    Let me show you that what we do is far too specialized for any of this to be a concern.

    I work in the studio maintenance shop in Toronto (that blows most of my cover) and I can tell you if I have a job for life, it wasn’t my doing.

    In the process of down-sizing through attrition (there are too few of us to lay off), our particular shop has seen an enormous increase in workload: where at Jarvis St. we looked after the video portion of 5 news studios, and computer graphics, we are now charged with all news studios including the audio and robotics, the equivalent of twice our original major production studios (Studio 4, 4s, 7, 7s), lighting and rigging, wireless, computer graphics has been replaced by character generators, and a whack of colour monitors, which are dying on a daily basis.

    Oh, and Parkervision.

    It used to take two years to get a new guy up to speed in our shop, now its at least twice that.

    Furthermore, the support mechanisms that we counted on have been undermined as well: Montreal EHQ has been sacked (you can’t imagine how short-sighted that was), so we’re charged with helping the local engineers (who only function to do installations) to evaluate expensive broadcasting equipment.

    Also, we’re expected to be our own clerks and document everything. To some degree this is reasonable, but to think that our jobs are at risk because the Auditor General will have us all sacked for lack of documentation is outrageous; since when are the bench monkeys responsible for management information?

    Our immediate managers are NOT to be blamed, they forever grind away, and without the proper tools to boot. For example, we have an inventory ‘problem’ that I hesitate to expose.

    For all these reasons, the corp is stuck with us. I wish it weren’t like that. I wish that my electronic skills weren’t so tuned to keeping the corp on the air. I wish I could assemble a resume any employer could recognize.

    Basically, the problem is that the CBC is a large fish in a small pond: the Toronto Broadcasting Centre ranks as a world-leading facility, so much so that major manufacturers have sold us broadcasting equipment at discounted prices no one else gets just so that they can be associated with us.

    Broadcasting electronics is only taught at SAIT in Calgary; even these grads need us to train them in our shop, tho’ less than regular electronics grads.

    So ‘job for life’ and ‘flexibility’ is a non issue for us. But we’re a minority. We were a minority in CEP, we’re less so now in the CMG. However, the questions must be asked: if the technical end of broadcasting is so specialized, is this true in other areas as well?

    I can tell you that even with all the bright-eyed grads coming out of the many Radio and Television Arts schools, very few of them can be plunked into our operators’ chairs. I know, because I get fault calls from new people that are operational ignorance (lack of training) problems.

    This is getting to be a big problem as the older staff bail out. And they can’t bail out fast enough: their tired of being taken for granted. Very often, they wont answer their phones at home for fear that their being asked to come in to fill a hole in a shift.

    So back to the original question: jobs for life? Not by their choice. They have been trained to make production easy an they’re good at it. How much so? Consider the operators and similar talent that was layed off.

    The field audio operators were layed off some years back. How have they faired? Generally speaking, very well; they corporation is a less prefered client, though they will work for us occasionally.

    They say that when they quote a rate to any outsider, the charges are accepted without question. The corp wants to nickle and dime them. Should have thought of that sooner, pal.

    Or consider the scenic artists who’ve been let go. Do you have any idea how to paint a 737 aircraft with whatever logo the artistic directors requests (and be able to remove it afterwards)? We had people who new. We don’t now, and we’ll pay through the nose when we need him back.

    All this specialized training was done here at the corp. They were let go, and they thrive. We have no people to replace them. While it’s wonderful that the job market was able to absorb them, we were the ones who needed them most. This is why they too should have had jobs for life. Their specialized training implicitly demanded a flexibility that they enjoyed.

    OK, so the corp is stuck with technical/operations, what of all those journalists that make up much of the CMG?

    I can only comment on this as an outsider, and I’m sure enough of you will be able to fill in the blanks. I’d suggest that the specialized writing skills to sound right for radio an TV cannot be as common as crabgrass; we have far too many awards, many international in scope, that suggests that the writing abilities cultivated in house has thrived.

    Jobs for life? Flexibility? Here too, it seems necessity demands both.

    The letter to the Globe and Mail from fearless leader requiring more temporary/casual/contract help to deal with specialized niches may be a legitimate concern, but how many positions are we talking about? Do we realistically anticipate whole new shows/new formats that we’ll be overrun with new bodies?

    Hardly. For all the new content and the associated experts, they still have to fit it into tv or radio format, and that we know how to do.

    Still, if you want SOME more temp/casual/contract positions, why not clear all the contested long-term temporary/casual employees we have at present, who’ve been working full-time for years?

    Having belaboured the point as I have, can I suggest that the flexibility and job-for-life issues are a cover?

    I personally think (along with a significant group) that the corporation would prefer to get out of the messy business of broadcasting, and prefer to simply sign cheques buying programs for what they envisions Canadian Broadcasting should be.

    I’ve heard that R. Stursberg enjoyed this at Telefilm(?), and perhaps fearless leader would much rather be doing this too.

    If this is the case, then these guys are genuine monsters as far as I’m concerned.

    Sorry for the length; clearly I’m NOT a journalist…

  11. Anonymous
    Posted September 7, 2005 at 7:47 am | # | Reply to this masterpiece

    Radio One local shows are at or close to the top of the ratings in most of their markets. English TV’s grown very confused, especially under Stursberg, but hundreds of thousands (millions?) of Canadians pick CBC radio over all the commercial competitors.

    Perfect? Obviously not. But they’re doing something right, at least as far as programming with broad appeal is concerned.

    Of course, there could be a whole discussion about whether airing stuff a whole lot of people want to watch/listen to constitutes success or failure for a public broadcaster, in which CBC is damned either way. But that’s something Rabinovitch and Stursberg and Chalmers could be spending their time much more productively figuring out.

  12. Anonymous
    Posted September 7, 2005 at 7:16 am | # | Reply to this masterpiece

    The CBC needs to become more objective in their reporting , the way it is now the level of bias is intolerable, Radio One is the worst offender it’s like a propaganda machine for the liberal left, this is why it is irrelevant to most canadians, how did this come to be ? Also spare us all the wonky music and play something people actually listen to.

  13. Anonymous
    Posted September 7, 2005 at 7:07 am | # | Reply to this masterpiece

    The CBC is a second rate TV and radio broadcaster brought to us by the gargantuan waste of Canadians hard earned tax dollars at the expense of real TV and radio broadcasters.
    The 6% viewership reflects the relevance and that should be enough for us as Canadians to dissolve the entire social engineering experiment.
    Even worse the ability of the federal liberal party to use the CBC as it’s own bipartisan(lefty antiamerican) mouthpiece makes the CBC a harmful parasite on Canadians who’s time is up.

    PS. The airing of the 3 part anti American 9/11 mockumentary last night when Americans are looking to their friends in their time of need is disgusting, meanspirited and stupid.

  14. Anonymous
    Posted September 7, 2005 at 4:53 am | # | Reply to this masterpiece

    Isn’t the attitude in your post and the comments below a bit predictable and lacking in real insight and analysis? For a bunch of people in ‘journalism’ you might try to do a little better than ‘management is poopy and yucky’.

    Maybe you might render the same criticism of your own union leaders – ie. it is their job to get you what you want and to keep you gainfully employed in the process. They have failed miserably. They should be removed. They’ve been negotiating a new agreement, unsuccessfully, for how long?

    So it cuts both ways.

  15. Anonymous
    Posted September 6, 2005 at 10:28 pm | # | Reply to this masterpiece

    still waiting to hear the name of the lecturing manager

  16. Anonymous
    Posted September 6, 2005 at 9:28 pm | # | Reply to this masterpiece

    I believe that ridding ourselves of this little Napoleon is a necessary step in the right direction if the CBC has any hope of surviving. He seems to have created a corporate culture of toadyism and fear, in which all ideas flow only in a downward direction. The other henchmen or henchpersons are not exempt in this either, particularly Chalmers, who although has come from humble CBC beginnings as a journalist has no time or patience for anyone who dares to debate her ideas. She will make sensitive manager noises to try to convince you otherwise, but do not mistake this for actual compassion or, for that matter, interest.

    A good start would be a wholesale cleaning at the top and if you want to make this organization lean, that is where you go. We have enough brass to make several spitoons. Then you need a president and executive who is more interested in making a name for CBC than for themselves. This would mean someone who could create a healthy and positive culture allowing staff (that’s right, staff) to express their concerns and ideas and then act on them. Finally, we need people on our board of directors who are not avowed enemies of public broadcasting.

    Yes, Bobby has to go. But who will take him out? Alas, only the Liberals can provide this service but do not forget who put this megalomaniac in – the Liberals. Jean Chrétien blessed us with this guy and Jean was no real friend of CBC. Is Paul Martin?

    With some of the world’s most talented journalists on our side, perhaps it would make an interesting investigation to find out why the CBC has been subjected to almost 8 times the financial cutting than has been endured by other federal agencies and why we are not able to receive a simple increase to cover the costs of inflation.

    I believe that serious pressure needs to be placed on the Liberals in order to flush Bobby and his like out of the system. With Gomery fresh in the Liberals’ minds and a federal election imminent there may never be a better time. There may never be a more pressing need.

  17. Anonymous
    Posted September 6, 2005 at 8:31 pm | # | Reply to this masterpiece

    Anyone who can read this quote from a Newfoundland CBC’er and tell me there is ANYTHING right about what management is locking us out for, needs to have a soul adjustment.

    “You know, this thing about permanent jobs is important. Look at me. Suddenly the doctor says I have cancer. I can’t work. I don’t know when I’ll be able to go back. If I wasn’t permanent I’d be out on my ear. I’d have no job, no income, no benefits. I’m in a tough spot right now and who knows how it’s going to turn out. But one thing I don’t have to worry about is paying my bills, keeping my house and helping my family. I didn’t get cancer to cost CBC money or to prove a point. I’d gladly not have it. But I do. People at CBC fought to have permanent jobs. I owe them a lot. I hope you keep fighting for it. There’ll be others like me.”
    Ed Hynes, a CBCer from Corner Brook, Nfld., currently fighting inoperable stomach cancer

    Management may have some grand corporate plan. I guess they don’t care about the next Ed Hynes. Shame on CBC Management. Shame.

  18. Anonymous
    Posted September 6, 2005 at 8:17 pm | # | Reply to this masterpiece

    Why do you not identify the manager who is “lecturing” people on the line?

  19. Anonymous
    Posted September 6, 2005 at 6:55 pm | # | Reply to this masterpiece

    Hey if Adrienne gets the job maybe we’ll all get a seat on the next train.
    As for Booby,Owning Park place and Boardwalk seems like a monopoly to me.How can there be true accountability with a set-up like that.

  20. Anonymous
    Posted September 6, 2005 at 5:55 pm | # | Reply to this masterpiece

    I don’t see that big of difference between the CBCs position and the unions. Could there some other hidden reason that this lockout occured at this particular time? After all, the thinking class of Canada is disconnected along with anyone else in this world that could pick up the CBC radio signal.

  21. Anonymous
    Posted September 6, 2005 at 5:50 pm | # | Reply to this masterpiece

    Ahhh…. another front line manager that took that Bully101 course that they all take…grrrrrrrr….meow !!!!!!

  22. Anonymous
    Posted September 6, 2005 at 4:21 pm | # | Reply to this masterpiece

    There is one manager (a true manager) who is using his two-minute “wait time” on the picket line to lecture former staff members.

    Among the topics “discussed” to far:

    – the news program looks “great.” Wonders why we need 300 people to put on a news program when they can put one on with a fraction of that number and still have it look “great;”

    – wondering aloud why staff members, some of whom are not very healthy, can walk the picket line but will call in sick at the first sign of a cold;

    – mentioned that he is “keeping a list” of former staff members he sees walking the picket line.

    I’m sure there have been more in the series of lectures.

    Some of these guys really are pathetic. I mean really; how does a guy like this find the balls to harass people who have been locked out of work.

  23. Anonymous
    Posted September 6, 2005 at 2:49 pm | # | Reply to this masterpiece

    Hey, if Adrienne Clarkson becomes our prez, perhaps we’ll finally get a GOOD Christmas party!

  24. Anonymous
    Posted September 6, 2005 at 12:59 pm | # | Reply to this masterpiece

    T understand that the current GG will be looking for a new job soon. Perhaps Ms. Clarkson would like to come back to us in a new role as President. She’d certainly know the way of CBC and of the Feds-just have to get her to curb the over-the-top spending.

  25. Anonymous
    Posted September 6, 2005 at 11:03 am | # | Reply to this masterpiece

    Everyone’s demanding that heads roll… or assuming there’ll be hell to pay when we’re all back in the building.

    But let’s look at history. No one from senior management really walks the plank — with the notable exception of former Radio program director and Mr. New Age Sensitivity, Adrian Mills.

    There’s a good chance we’ll all have to live with these idiots a while longer. And I’m even betting that some will get promoted for ‘taking one for the team.’

    I’m sure Rob Renaud and Susan Marjetti will have new titles, offices and business cards in the coming months.

    There has to be some pay-off for their daily humiliation.

  26. Anonymous
    Posted September 6, 2005 at 8:11 am | # | Reply to this masterpiece

    At a Labour Day Parade yesterday. MP Scott Simms says the Heritage committee will soon be looking for answers from Dick And Bobby. He told locked out workers that he will call for the heritage committee(he’s on the CBC Caucus of the committee)to meet soon and call Dick and Bobby to acount for what’s happenning.Remember last week we were expecting an announcement about Bobbys future. Maybe it’s sealed. Simms says he’s knows government is suppose to be arms lenght but he says the CBC is the glue that holds canada culture together and it’s starting to become unstuck with this lock out especially in the north and rural parts of this country.

  27. Anonymous
    Posted September 6, 2005 at 7:58 am | # | Reply to this masterpiece

    yeah i thought you said mgmt knew who u were too… based on previous posts like walking into the muffin meeting —
    **I went in there half expecting them to jump me and put me in shackles.

    But this was, of course, only my paranoia and vanity. The truth is that they don’t lose too much sleep over me **
    i didn’t think u just mean’t reading your missives–

    back then u told us how good everybody looked– how they doin now?
    cuz all labour day wknd as the shut-ins skittered back and forth through the doors they were ALL complaining — they weren’t happy campers

  28. Anonymous
    Posted September 6, 2005 at 7:57 am | # | Reply to this masterpiece

    yeah i thought you said mgmt knew who u were too… based on previous posts like walking into the muffin meeting —
    **I went in there half expecting them to jump me and put me in shackles.

    But this was, of course, only my paranoia and vanity. The truth is that they don’t lose too much sleep over me **
    i didn’t think u just mean’t reading your missives–

    back then u told us how good everybody looked– how they doin now?
    cuz all labour day wknd as the shut-ins skittered back and forth through the doors they were ALL complaining
    they weren’t happy campers —

  29. Ouimet
    Posted September 6, 2005 at 6:29 am | # | Reply to this masterpiece

    Maybe CBC managers aren’t so bad after all.

    I know a lot of managers feel the same way as I do. They might not verbalize it the same way, but this will ring true for them.

    I’m not sure why you think Journalists will do a better job.

    Well, the best president the CBC ever had was probably Davie Dunton. He “got it,” and on his watch the CBC was at its most creative.

    With a man like that watching your back, you don’t have to worry about someone pulling the rug out from under you as you work. He or she is going to put production first, regardless of the political consequnces, and is going to stick up for you when you need it.

    I know the SMC is probably also partly to blame for all this, but the president is fostering a certain environment in this place, and the SMC has little choice but to follow in principle. Hell, he helped choose these people. Which is why if I have to point a finger, I will point it at the top.

    Ouimet, who are you and why are you toying with these people? … Half the time you pander, the other half you toe the party line.

    Is it so hard to believe that I am just trying to find the truth? And that sometimes the truth is what people don’t want to hear?

    All of us are so used to getting dogma and propaganda on this subject that when someone tries to speak honestly, it is seen as either as “pandering” or “the party line.” Isn’t it possible that the truth is somewhere in between?

    The snake pit is hilarious: if I don’t give enough info, I’m a sellout. Too much, I’m a plant. Say what you don’t want to hear, I am out of touch. And if you agree with me, I am for real.

    You previously posted that upper mgnt knows who you are.

    I think what I said was that they read this web site. If they knew who I was, I think this site – and me – would be gone pretty quickly. I think management would love to see me disappear. So would CMG, truth be told.

  30. Anonymous
    Posted September 6, 2005 at 6:15 am | # | Reply to this masterpiece

    Ouimet – Its Neutron – You previously posted that upper mgnt knows who you are. Now that you have defamed Bobby on here how can you expect to be able to keep your job – that is if your Blog is legit ?

  31. Nonamuss
    Posted September 6, 2005 at 6:05 am | # | Reply to this masterpiece

    I am glad Jane is beginning to get her share of the shame.

    I also think that it’s simplistic to think that the leadership of journalists is always going to be more sympathetic to the interests the folks in the trenches producing programs. Is our corporate memory that short? If you come from radioland, recall Alex Frame. Terrific producer in his early days. Corrosive manager. And didn’t the not-missed Harold Redekopp rise from the ranks of producers?

    My question are, how insulated is the president? Who is he taking his advice from? Is any dissent filtering up from the ranks of the locked-in?

  32. Anonymous
    Posted September 6, 2005 at 5:51 am | # | Reply to this masterpiece

    Are you aware that Robert Rabinovitch is not just the CEO and Pres of the CBC but right now he is also the Chair of the Board of Directors. Talk about concentration of power….one man holds all the cards right now. There’s something fundamentally wrong with this picture. He should never have been allowed to fill in behind the Chair after Taylor left. Especially given this critical moment in our history…all of us being one union now. Would the lockout have been approved if there was another voice to act as a check on one man’s very ” private” ambitions. I think Mr. Rabinovitch and others at senior levels of management have forgotten that we are a “public” institution….it is not our job to compete with the private sector for ratings. We are not here to be popular…we are here to serve a higher purpose. But being a humble public broadcaster isn’t enough for people like Rabinovitch and Stursberg. You can’t build empires if you’re just trying to make sure the public is informed and connected. I have no faith in this corporation anymore….if the CBC really is just a private broadcaster in disguise then we might as well work for the privates and make more money. I am with all of you who are calling for a review of senior management that would lead to some people being removed for a failure to lead.

    I agree that some heads should roll over this.

  33. Anonymous
    Posted September 6, 2005 at 4:40 am | # | Reply to this masterpiece

    Ouimet, you are only partly right. Yes, the huge problem is Bobby R and his fellow bean counters. But I can’t even begin to describe the level of my disappointment with Jane Chalmers, who rose through the journalistic ranks. She, of all people, should know how destructive the management plan is to journalism. Fire Jane Chalmers. Fire Dickie Stursburg. Fire Rabinovitch!!!

  34. Anonymous
    Posted September 5, 2005 at 9:14 pm | # | Reply to this masterpiece

    Ouimet, who are you and why are you toying with these people? I know Todd says he knows your name, but I don’t believe it. Half the time you pander, the other half you toe the party line. Shame! Boo hiss.

  35. disturbed
    Posted September 5, 2005 at 8:40 pm | # | Reply to this masterpiece

    I’m not sure a journalist is the best choice for the job.
    I’m not sure a programming exec from a private broadcaster is a good choice either.
    I believe the President should be someone who has worked at the CBC and understands its unique culture.
    At any rate, B.R. has been a disaster from the get-go. Any of my encounters with him (all in the regions) have left me far from impressed, and in some cases furious with his lack of understanding of the corporation with which he is entrusted.

  36. Anonymous
    Posted September 5, 2005 at 8:31 pm | # | Reply to this masterpiece

    Jane Chalmers is rarely named as part of the problem and I wonder why that is. Stursberg, Smith and Rabinovitch are always the names that get bandied about when assigning blame for the current nightmare. Is it because Chalmers rose up through the ranks of the CBC and isn’t seen as an outsider? It’s a mistake to absolve her of any blame. I can assure you that she has been as much a part of the orchestration of all this as any of the others.

  37. Anonymous
    Posted September 5, 2005 at 8:26 pm | # | Reply to this masterpiece

    /signed

  38. Laurence
    Posted September 5, 2005 at 8:21 pm | # | Reply to this masterpiece

    A home run. Outta the park!
    Now, do you think there might be someone interested in Robin Rowland’s template (The Garret Tree #52) which might take us to the next step?

  39. Anonymous
    Posted September 5, 2005 at 8:18 pm | # | Reply to this masterpiece

    Someone needs to pay the price for this fiasco. If heads don’t roll at the top, then the current level of distrust between workers and senior managers will remain. As to who should replace our current “leader”, it’s time to change the system. We need an effective Board which has the power to seek out a President and appoint him/her… making the president truly accountable. Enough with the Liberal hacks! If they can’t even use their connections to win more dollars, then what’s the use of them? Should our new leader be a journalist? I think it’s clear to many of us that journalists by and large make terrible managers (some of us even recognise that we do a lousy job!). Advertise the job and let a truly independent Board choose. They can’t do worse than the hand-picked seletions of our Dear Leader.

  40. Anonymous
    Posted September 5, 2005 at 8:02 pm | # | Reply to this masterpiece

    Bravo!

    You have my vote the job, once (if) he gets the boot.

    You are not a fake after all.

    Thanks. Something we have been saying for quite some time.

    Now get your colleagues on the inside organized and let’s end this thing!

  41. mixpdf
    Posted September 5, 2005 at 7:33 pm | # | Reply to this masterpiece

    Bam! Right on the head! You pretty much nailed it with this one. Maybe CBC managers aren’t so bad after all.

  42. Anonymous
    Posted September 5, 2005 at 7:03 pm | # | Reply to this masterpiece

    I’m not sure why you think Journalists will do a better job. The current lot have not exactly distinguished themseleves in the programmng department. Seems to me we’ve thrown quite an amount cash experimenting with one off shows that tanked in the ratings – Meg R and the disfunctional family in Hamilton etc…. How about a new mandate and stable funding.

  43. Anonymous
    Posted September 5, 2005 at 6:45 pm | # | Reply to this masterpiece

    /signed
    J.T.
    Toronto

  44. Anonymous
    Posted September 5, 2005 at 6:42 pm | # | Reply to this masterpiece

    Finally I think you get it Quimet.
    This is what most of the workers on the lockout line think as well. When you walk the line with your collegues, you get a better understanding of the pulse of what they feel is happening at the CBC. And the majority I have spoken with agree with what you have said in this latest blog post. Get rid of Bob !! Get rid of Dicky Strusberg. Someone with some journalistic talent has to be in charge of running a broadcasting corporation, not a bean counter, or someone who is a friend of the government of the moment.
    So how do we get rid of these guys? The longer this goes on, the longer they have failed at their job… They should BOTH be brought before some inquiry into ruining the CBC in their short careers here.


Post a Comment

Your email is never shared.

Upload Files

You can include images or files in your comment by selecting them below. Once you select a file, it will be uploaded and a link to it added to your comment. You can upload as many images or files as you like and they will all be added to your comment.

Write for us