Did someone say “transparent”?
The anchor desks are now see-through.
The incompetence of management is obvious, and on full display.
But other than that, in what way is the CBC News now “more transparent”?
Wendy?
Anyone?
Did someone say “transparent”?
The anchor desks are now see-through.
The incompetence of management is obvious, and on full display.
But other than that, in what way is the CBC News now “more transparent”?
Wendy?
Anyone?
6 Comments
Allan, will you shut up about the “unfair assignment” of Krista Erickson?
She broke a major rule of ethics and journalism. But, for some reason she’s exempt from the accountability you’re blathering on about here. Only the CBC and you seem to think she should be exempt. Everyone else is pretty much mortified and embarassed by her.
and where is your “accountability”…those who can do…those who can’t bitch…this isn’t the environment or health care…it’s friggin television – get over it.
JS
I’ve noticed how The National is talking to its own reporters about how they did their story, which is pretty cool.
Ok. As rare as that is, it does qualify as transparency. But I think that’s more an example of transparency lite. Safe, comfortable, and only telling, still, what the CBC will allow you to know about itself and its methods.
My view is that genuine transparency is in tandem with accountability, where it is an outside and unedited force that asks the questions and is responded to with courage and openness.
A transparency that is no more than a gimmick to add entertainment value is merely an expansion of the show business of news.
Greater discussion of journalistic process.
… took place when Krista Erickson got unfairly re-assigned.
And never since.