(This graphic has been removed. Here’s why.)
Spitting image?
Editor, publisher, factual entertainer.
Published November 30, 2007 11:52 am
The Tea Makers
They offered me the office, offered me the shop. They said I'd better take anything they'd got. Do you wanna make tea at the CBC? Do you wanna be, do you really wanna be a cop?
-
Archives
- December 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
- August 2005
- July 2005
-
RSS Feeds
-
Meta
39 Comments
When the final solution is to err on the side of self-censorship, the end is near.
Sad. Very sad.
Are the pictures depicted really more offensive than seeing Martha Stewart and The Wheel of Fortune on the CBC?
Oh, pull-leese, it’s funnny, lighten up!
It is ironic that Pickton has brought more eyeballs to Canadian TV sets than the Carole-banger ever will.
I find it odd that as time goes on, more and more commenters are asking me to censor posts and even their own comments. There are plenty of places in the world and the internet where you can get your fill of pre-chewed pabulum.
Why would you expect it here?
Why would you want it here?
The only possible answer is that this blog attracts so much attention that it has some kind of responsibility to “represent” all CBCers, as KFP Payan suggests.
I thought that was the job of CBC Communications? I certainly don’t want it.
As far as I’m concerned, CBCers can get their own damn blogs.
Ever since the birth of this blog, plenty of people have stopped by to say that I suck, that the blog sucks, that it’s a bloody disgrace and it should be shut down. On the 3rd day of its existence, someone chimed in to tell me that it was not as good as it used to be.
So don’t ever feel sorry for me. I’ve gotten used to it.
Boy, what a bunch of self-righteous, hectoring, politically correct… Canadians all these outraged anonymous complainers are. You’d think they’re all members of the downtown Toronto NDP. Oh, wait a minute. They work at the CBC. I guess they are.
If you don’t think it’s funny, move on, and don’t bother those of us who like our humour blacker than our coffee. I think Enik said all that needs to be said about this. I understand why you pulled the pic, Ouimet, but I think it’s too bad.
Available for a limited time only!
The lighter side of Stursberg, Ouimet and others.
Yeah, it’s that time again … HERE
That’s very funny Happypants. More please. I always thought Jian looked like Bob Denver.
Is there merit to Haddock’s complaint?
It has the air of sour grapes, and the defensiveness of a guy who’s not used to losing.
I’ve never liked anything he’s done, but I acknowledge that he’s a master at his craft, and fans of Da Vinci et al are indeed very fervent viewers .
The gritty tone and the scenes of Vancouver are fun, but the stories are boring.
Haddock is of course totally in line with the mainstream fascination de jour – cop shows that exploit the ghoulish and present a new puzzle for people who enjoy detective work.
And he’s been good for the CBC.
But while “Intelligence” may have intelligence, does anyone care about anyone in that cast? And Haddock seems to be married to the same actors every time.
Frankly, I think he’s in a rut, in just about every way.
So why be surprised and blame lack of promotion for his failure in the second season?
I suspect these shows attract a largely female audience, and they were pretty happy with Nick Campbell, and without him, why bother.
These negative comments about the blog are ridiculous.
The lookalike game’s been fun since the days of Spy Magazine and probably Mad Magazine before that.
Gian Ghomeshi is looking more and more like Austin Powers. Behaves like him too.
Fred Mattocks has had Hitler’s haircut since forever.
We could go on…
If I were your mother, I’d tell you it’s time to quit your blog and your job
I’m all for Ouimet’s mother moderating what has too often become an embarrassing and petty blog.
If it becomes too taxing for her, maybe Allan’s mother is available.
i’m glad you’re respecting your mother by making this decision based on morality and integrity. if only more people were like you (cough, cough)
Good call, Ouimet.
I’m a big supporter of free speech and of free expression, both mine and yours. At the same time I realize that I have to adhere to a morality that is greater than myself.
Tonight this takes the form of my mom telling me to smarten up and take down this graphic.
Fascinating discussion, but mom has to win. Sorry.
I can’t agree that Enik’s post was “nicely done.” It is not “nicely done” to defend a blog entry which associates a chief executive of a significant public corporation in our country with a man who is suspected of butchering dozens of women.
It’s just not on. Come on posters, grow up.
Maybe the board isn’t inclined to do anything because a board member has a wife that’s a senior programmer.
In any other public organization this would be a seen as a scandal. Here it’s business as usual.
Nicely done, Enik.
It matters not that Stursberg goes from failure to failure for he, effectively, answers to no one. If the Board doesn’t become engaged and exercise some authority executives can fuck up with impunity. There are no controls. You have a structural/governance problem at your Corporation.
You know, it’s been interesting reading the responses to this post. It’s obvious that the comparison provokes an instant gut reaction (you either find it darkly amusing, or you don’t) without much in between.
As offended as some are by the allusion, I think there are a few things we should keep in mind:
1) It’s a blog post. It’s obviously intended to be satirical. Sometimes satire isn’t funny. Sometimes it’s in poor taste, sometimes it’s heartless, sometimes it’s extreme.
2) The people from communications and senior management who have commented here (and it’s not hard to figure out which posts are theirs) really should get out more. It’s not like this is Tubgirl or 2girls1cup. Nastier things are said about Britney Spears and Paris Hilton on a good day.
3) Stursberg is a public figure and is deeply associated with a number of negative events and initiatives since joining the CBC, and even before if you look at his time with Telefilm.
4) As such, he is an appropriate target for criticism and satire, even if it’s mean-spirited, offensive or rude.
5) If this was an equally offensive/satirical comparison between someone and Ann Coulter, Conrad Black, Dick Cheney, or possibly even Stephen Harper, I doubt there’s be as much of a stir (which is a statement in itself).
6) As Ouimet has said, we all know (or at least we’re pretty sure) that Stursberg is not actually a serial killer–and it should also be obvious that the families of Pickton’s victims are unlikely to see this post unless someone literally drags them to the page.
7) The analogy wouldn’t get any laughs if the visual similarity between the two pictures wasn’t there. It is, you’ll either laugh or you won’t, get over it.
8) Stursberg isn’t provoking this kind of vitriol, even years after the lockout, for nothing. He’s arrogant, imperious, self-centred and rude, and has inspired similar behaviour among his direct reports. He is uninterested in his employees and the work they do, and has apparently told his direct reports that he doesn’t want to hear how overworked anyone is or how his pet projects or initiatives aren’t working. He has personally made programming choices that have failed dismally and that others have taken the heat for. He’s hypocritical, as we know from the “million viewer minimum” he imposed on prime time programs and then backed away from afterward. I don’t think we can blame him for the Rusty & Jerome debacle, but he’s created an atmosphere among senior management where the valuable and meaningful past programs and accomplishments of the organization are devalued and trivialized.
9) Hate is a strong word, so I’ll hold myself back and say that no other VP of TV in recent memory has been so fiercely and universally disliked, even by people who don’t work in his media line. If this is a problem for him, and I doubt that it is, there are several simple ways for him to address it: apologize to everyone, staff and management, for the lockout and the role he played in it and its lingering after-effects; report back to the staff about his vision and priorities for the last two years and admit that few of them have been achieved; and, if he wants to go all out, acknowledge that he’s the wrong person for his newly acquired position, step aside and give it to someone with actual production and management experience in both radio and television (Mark S, for example, though he probably wouldn’t do it).
10) I like numbered lists.
Finally, I understand and sympathize with Anonymous 1:18 a.m. about the viletones. I’m not a big fan of them either. However, “those cynical lifers who think that they say can anything negative about the corporation with impunity” didn’t get that way because they were treated with respect, dignity and support in the workplace.
Some people roll with the punches and keep up with the changes, some don’t. Some leave and find other jobs, and some don’t. Despite how they’ve been treated, some of them still feel a connection and commitment to the organization, seeing it as more than just a job…and some don’t. And that’s what’s sad.
Take it down Ouimet. The analogy is disgusting and you should know better. Now, you have associated yourself with the worst of what we used to call the CBC “viletones.” Namely, those cynical lifers who think that they say can anything negative about the corporation with impunity. Sad.
Leave it. This isn’t some official CBC organ, it’s an anonymous place where people can bitch, learn, invent, strategize, commiserate, tell tales and do whatever they can’t do inside the hallowed halls.
We’re (mostly) grownups here. If we don’t like something, we can argue about it, just like we’re doing right now. If you can’t stomach that, you aren’t obliged to stick around.
It may be news to some, but the internet is full of distasteful stuff. Little of it provokes such an interesting dialog. And the naysayers who claim this is just trying to provoke a response haven’t been reading long enough. Ouimet seldom does that, and it’s usually the big, challenging ideas that generate the best feedback.
I can see the “respect for the family” thing, but then you might as well ask all three branches of CBC to stop talking about Pickton.
I don’t think you meant to offend anyone Ouimet, I really don’t.
But I think out of respect to the women and families affected by this trial you should take it down.
I’d say you’re far closer to TMZ than you’d think…the only time you get substantial response is when you broach tabloid style info…where’s the intelligent or at least intelligible debate on what CBC should be. You’re not far off carcrash jounalism or Ok!, and National Enquirer. So I guess the bloggers above really do support changes in CBCNews by proving where you need to go to drum up most interest and reaction.
No surprise, I’m in the yay category. I appreciate you pointing out the resemblance.
For style and behaviour, I again advise your readers to check out the David Strathairn villain role in the Bourne Ultimatum.
I vote yay. Continue to push the limit even if you go too far, and when you go too far leave it there so all can see you’ve gone too far. What you are doing is so important, and will be regarded on par with Graham Spry decades from now. So many of us wish we could post under our own names but to do so would mean more than just losing our jobs. Democracy requires messy and uncontrolled dissidence. Democratize the CBC.
How very brave to ridicule others in anonymity. You are neither funny nor witty. If your idea is to get a reaction then you have one and it’™s one of PITY
I’d say stop setting up posts to attack people personally. There’s nothing clever in this.
Mine’s a nay.
What next? Some one else bear a resemblence to Robert Dziekanski?
Well, I think he’d be more flattered if it was Hannibal Lecter. Pickton is somewhat on the low-rent side.
And frankly, bad taste is better than no taste at all. Which brings us back to the ‘winter season’ announcement.
Ouimet, I respect your right to post whatever you want up here, but I have to say that I find this comparison to be in poor taste. It’s disingenuous of you to claim that you’re just putting the two pictures up here because they look similar, nothing more. If our president looked similar to Paul Bernardo would you put those pictures side-by-side?
On the other hand, I think you should leave this post up. It’s a perfect illustration of what kind of a person you are when you say “I still think that your reaction says more about you than it does me.”
Look, of course Richard is no serial killer.
The 2 pictures look the same, and you can draw your own conclusions. And I still think that your reaction says more about you than it does me.
But I’m no monster. If you guys think I’ve gone too far, I’ll take it down. I’ll leave it up to the crowd. A simple yay or nay will suffice.
Unless you’re Richard Stursberg. Richard, if you’re reading this and this really bothers you, email me and it’s as good as gone.
This is unfair, he’s a serial incompetent (see Telefilm) not a serial murderer. You’ve gone a little far.
They do look similar here. But I think that just shows how crappy the courtroom sketchers are. No resemblance in photographs.
Hey, I laughed.
Serial killers aren’t very funny, Ouimet. Even if the images look similar, there are some things you should just walk away from.
Hey colleague Payan…chill. Biting satire is one of the touchstones of democracy. And this small juxtaposition of images without embellishment or script addition to help it along… is exactly that.
The reader can draw whatever conclusions he/she wants.
In my book this is exactly the sort of provocative and compelling post a respected blog writer should create.
Okay, I get it’”-so you don’™t agree with Mr. Stursberg’™s strategic direction or vision for the CBC perhaps? Fair enough. But you’™ve gone too far this time, way too far. I’™m all for open and honest debate on the issues affecting the future of an iconic Canadian institution’”-one that speaks to many of us where we live. But to draw an analogy between your corporate leader and a serial killer is neither funny nor clever. In fact it is despicable and cowardly, and undermines the efforts of other employees’”-people who are already often fighting against their unfair portrayal as complacent, under-worked and self-entitled’”-to be taken seriously when it counts. I think I reflect the majority of the employee population when I say ’œmy apologies Richard.’
Seems you’ve hit an all-time low with this, Ouimet. The allusion is disgraceful, reprehensible and, in so many ways, beyond rebuke. It also renders your own blogging manifesto meaningless. As a fellow employee, that you are in some way a reflection of ‘us’ externally, makes me ill in this case. Maybe it’s time for a new hobby. Seriously.
Now now, it seems a bit unfair to malign Mr. Pickton like this until the jury results are in. We don’t want to trigger a mistrial.
I hear Pickton has better manners and treated his
employees with respect.
Pickton also dosen’t say dumbass things like “more Tim Horton’s and less Starbucks”.