“Rumours have been flying throughout the CBC about a total integration of its English-language services. The network was guarded about any details ahead of today’s announcement, with some closer to management playing it down as ‘backroom’ management changes.”
Globe: Executive shuffle expected at CBC today
Editor, publisher, factual entertainer.
Published February 20, 2008 4:37 am
13 Comments
Well let us see. What difference does this shuffle make for us rank and file?
Much of the same names..some shuffled here and there..and most of them while upper middle aged ‘waspy’ men. Inspiring. Very inspiring. I think the men outnumber the women by two to one and don’t even consider looking for visible minorities here…and given their conduct during the lockout..most of these folks do NOT have the trust of the rank and file.
anonymous 7:32 AM
“the fact he (Allan) pisses a lot of people off is part of his brilliance”
You don’t have to be “brilliant” to piss people off, I mean, just look at Dick. Do not confuse insanity with genius. Allan is the one who denounced the Fire Dick Now campaign. He brags about his days with the Manson Family. Allan is an agent provocateur and he trolls the internet challenging and provoking dissent.
As for Teamakers being “free speech and free thought” don’t believe it. Use a CBC computer to blog on this site and then see what happens. A “firestorm” indeed :(
I think Allan is the jewel of the Tea Makers. I find him one of the best players on this fine stage. The fact that he pisses a lot of people off is part of his brilliance. The other part of his genius is the insight he brings. Never mind the naysayers Allan, you help make this site the firestorm that it is. :)
You’re free to speak.
And so am I.
Who cares if Allan is annoying, he provokes. CBC needs that badly.
Heather 4:53 PM
“the only downside to Teamakers is (Allan’s) posts”
Hey Quimet; why don’t you ask Allan to take a break for a couple of months. His sanctimonious postings are becoming even more annoying than Dick’s memos.
I appreciate the encouragement, Allan.
But in my experience the only downside to Teamakers is your posts.
welcome to the club, heather.
you won’t find your comments rejected here, based on my experience with Teamakers.
insidecbc is a corporate blog and I’ll let you attach your own understanding of what that means.
There are many serious problems with that site, but occasionally something actually quite good is done there. But man is it rare. My own conclusion is that it simply can’t be trusted, ever, but I won’t get into that for the time being.
Despite the frustration you will experience there I would encourage to to stay involved, mostly for the sake of those who prefer to gather and comment in the belief that any of it matters. There have been times when it ruled for a day or two, such as during the discussion about blogging guidelines.
But in every case it never hurts to try and interject your view regardless of the fact that power and control is out of your hands.
At Teamakers, it is us who are the decorations on Ouimet’s solid and proud tree. So add your voice when you feel something is being overlooked.
Apple is known for it’s volatile and impulsive leadership.
The CBC is more like a turtle in a coma by comparison when it comes to change.
And the great stuff at the Corporation is usually always a fluke.
PS Teamakers is free speech and free thought.
insidecbc is Big Brother, though it’s origin was supposed to be something else, telling us what we can talk about and what we can say.
“I pity the fool”s who take it seriously.
Inside CBC is total shill for the company. It has lots all credibility. Tea Makers is the only game in town…
odd. even my tamest comments are being rejected by “insidecbc”. So I’ll repeat one of them here.
There’s an old saying at Apple: “if you don’t like this re-org, wait for the next one.”
Okay Hubert, this ridiculous exercise happened on your watch. Here’s how it goes down – it takes two years for anybody to figure out to whom they are to report. Then, after that has been sorted out, the managers have a two year grace period to deflect responsibility for files to the person who would formerly have dealt with it. It will be a festival of avoidance and blame shifting. If, within that painful and costly transition period Harper gets a majority the entire plan will have to be scrapped to deal with a major scaling back of the operation. The CBC is a “content company”? Prove it by shedding managers and hiring a few writers and directors and other creative types who actually make the stuff. Nothing was “streamlined” here, the CBC remains one of the most top heavy institutions in the private or public spheres in Canada. Show me the content Hubert. Show me the content.
Birtism on the part of Stursberg.
[Stursberg’s] [CBC] denounced by [Rabinovitch]
…”Turning on [Richard’s] fondness for management consultants, [Rabinovitch] described the CBC as ‘too much bureaucracy, over-bloated policy units and too much spent on expansion in management’.
The crime writer [Jane Smith ] and a former CBC governor, also joined the attack on the corporation’s ‘managerial ethos’, saying it hampered creativity. She cautioned: ‘Creativity in sound and vision doesn’t flourish in an atmosphere of despotism, coercion and fear.’
[Rabinovitch] said the CBC’s strategy of creating channels, such as the rolling news service News 24, to compete in the digital age was wrong. ‘The CBC’s response should be not to expand its empire at the licence payers’ expense but to concentrate on its mainstream channels and invest in them.
‘Less money should be spent on those areas not directly connected with programming, and there are plenty of them. The money should go on what the licence payer can see and hear.’
He compared News 24’s A30 million start-up budget to the CBC’s recent loss of sports rights, including [Canadian Football] to [CTV]. ‘The CBC is a national broadcaster. People expect to see and hear the big events. That should be the priority.’
Perhaps most damagingly for [Richard], [Rabinovitch] rubbished the bi-media policy which has seen radio and television production departments merged to great unrest among CBC staff. He said: ‘I don’t believe in the amalgamation of radio and television. They are not the same. And I fear for the future of radio against the monster of television.’
He continued: ‘The future of the CBC lies in the kind of skills of those programme makers whose budgets are now being dangerously squeezed The future of public service broadcasting in the UK will flourish, as long as the CBC remembers that people and programmes are very much more important than policies and processes.’
The CBC immediately issued a statement saying: ‘Much has happened in the media world in the three years since [Rabinovitch] left, but the CBC remains single-minded in offering programmes on radio and television which the market alone will not provide.’
[Rabinovitch] was speaking in a Lords debate on the future of public service broadcasting. Earlier the [Senator Romilly], urged the CBC to concentrate on making high-quality programmes and not to try to emulate commercial channels.
[MIss Smith] said: ‘I could wish that the CBC today were a happier place in which creative people could work and flourish.’ She spoke of talented executives appointed in a blaze of publicity who suddenly were ‘no longer there’.
‘They disappear into a total silence, a silence which is hardly compatible with an organisation dedicated to openness.’
[Liberal Senator Brown], the film director, highlighted the ‘social purpose’ of public service broadcasting, noting that ‘trash, trivia and sensation’ were cheap, but ‘truth, responsibility, and quality’ cost more.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/1999/mar/04/bbc
Bend over, radio.