Heads in the Sand at CBC

There is only one thing harder to watch than the new National News on CBC, it is the complete and utter baloney emanating from the people who run the newscast.

In the face of an avalanche of negativity, some observers are pegging the overwhelmingly negative response to the changes at over 99% based on the CBC’s own web site and blog spots, the folks who run CBC and CBC News are making complete asses of themselves with their responses to what I would consider a crisis or even a catastrophe.

While it is true that there have been a lot of complaints about Peter Mansbridge’s uncomfortable standing posture, and many, many complaints about the highly overdone “mal de mer” inducing moving graphics behind every person who ventures on to the set, and of course darts tossed at the strange unmotivated whooshing sounds that emanate from nowhere; the real complaint, and almost every correspondent to CBC makes it clear, is the lack of serious journalism. The shallowness of the stories is paramount. The lack of any depth or context is what is really putting people off. And this is what the folks who run our tax payer financed national news seem unable to grasp.

The only way to prove this point is to let Peter Mansbridge, Jonathan Whitten and Richard Stursberg speak for themselves. Here’s what they had to say about last week’s disaster at the Ceeb:

First Richard Stursberg:

As we close out the first week of the new CBC News, let’s take a moment to consider the reaction our changes have wrought throughout the country. Judging from media coverage and associated commentary, you would be forgiven for thinking the nation has been seized by an obsession with Peter Mansbridge’s chair (more precisely, its absence). Peter himself called it first and correctly in a pre-launch interview for a Toronto Star TV guide cover story. When we change anything about our newscasts, we hear about it. Don’t be disheartened. The sets and graphics look fantastic; as good as any in the world. We’re quickly moving into a rhythm and pace with the new style and new programs. And– this is the most important part– our commitment to telling the relevant news stories of the day, as we’ve always done, remains undiminished, even as the tools change, as they always do. Don’t be worried about the cheap shots from some at our competitor news organizations. Remember it’s in their interest that we should fail. In a fast-changing game, we’re redefining how news is presented to Canadians. And big changes make big splashes. Don’t worry about the noise, which is already subsiding. Congratulations for the stories you broke this week and on the context and depth you provided.

Richard Stursberg
Executive Vice-President
English Services

Now Peter Mansbridge:

It’s always interesting and important to monitor reaction to change. So far, there is no doubt there has been lots of reaction to the changes we have instituted at The National this week. As expected, the comments cover the spectrum and we’re getting lots of good ideas from our viewers on what they like and what they’re not so sure of at this point.
If there’s one area that seems common to both points of view, it’s reaction to the fact that I do parts of the program standing. Some seem to suggest that this is a radical departure from the past. Well, sure, “sitting at the anchor desk” is a traditional mainstay of many newscasts, but standing is hardly anything new. I have been anchoring The National since 1988, and I’ve done the broadcast “standing”, on average, at least twenty times a year, and no one has said anything. Guess they didn’t notice.
Last year on election night, a lengthy eight-hour broadcast, I did the whole program standing, and it was extremely popular – if the ratings game is anything to go by. It also gave the program a flexibility and mobility that we feel is needed in this day and age, especially for our broadcasts. Some people seem to forget that The National is unlike any other network newscast in Canada. It’s a one-hour broadcast, not half an hour, and it deals with much more than news stories. We have feature interviews, panel discussions and short documentary and background features. And we do it all in prime time, unlike the other Canadian networks. Global’s main newscast airs in the late afternoon. CTV goes to air in post-prime-time late night. So the on-air competition for viewer’s eyeballs to The National at 10 p.m. isn’t news – it’s drama and entertainment, the CSI’s of this world. So for us, flexibility is key in showcasing what is still, and always will be, our most important product – solid journalism..
On the interview front, I will continue to do lots of sit-down interviews, both on The National and on Mansbridge One on One on the weekend. However, there will be times when in-studio interviews are done standing, because we think they bring a whole new energy to the moment. And again it’s not new. Just a few months ago, I had a 10-minute session with Prime Minister Harper in Ottawa. We were standing in the Parliamentary Library at the time. A few years ago, I did the same with
former Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres. Much was made by some of my interview with General Rick Hillier on Monday night because we had that conversation “standing”. Perhaps those who thought that was something really different didn’t watch it very closely, because I even included, during that encounter, a taped segment of an interview the two of us had had five years ago in Afghanistan. And guess what – we were standing in that one, too.
Now the question has also come along about At Issue – Canada’s most-watched political panel. “Is Mansbridge going to make them all stand too?” The answer on that one is “no”. That conversation, a weekly appointment-television moment for hundreds of thousands of Canadians every week, is different and calls for a different look. This Thursday, Allan, Andrew and Chantal will all be in studio at a fancy new desk with fancy new chairs. Hope you join in the fun and watch.

Finally Jonathan Whitten, one of the bosses at CBC News:

Hi all…

Thanks for all your hard work in putting (most!) of week one behind us…

For those on the front lines…it’s been exhausting and exhilarating at the same time. The task of turning the ship around overnight was a huge one,
and a smooth and clean start in week one is testament to the passion and dedication of everyone who works here.

What viewers saw this week was a modern set and a modern look, a faster pace, and new faces and personalities. What they also saw were the same standards of journalism, the same emphasis on news, context, and original and enterprise reporting. Though the on-air team surrounding him is now stronger than ever, they also saw Peter still doing what he does best, guiding viewers through the same range of stories and storytelling, and talking to news makers and opinion leaders on topics that matter to Canadians.

Equally important, our new website and “early” versions of the National generated a huge amount of interest, and marked our first big step toward serving a brand new audience at brand new times and in brand new ways.

And while we continue to try to understand how and why a chunk of our audience disappeared overnight with the new audience panel under the PPM system, it was heartening to see that the first four nights of the new look and format was our strongest four-day streak under the new system.

While much of the din this week has been focused on the weighty issues of color and posture, as a participant in at least three make overs of the National look I can tell you that the tone and weight of the response from those who have e-mailed us this time around, compared to those who sent us letters, phoned, and faxed us in earlier times, is pretty much the same. What I think is different this time is a much more positive response anecdotally from people outside the CBC who find the new look refreshing and modern.

Having said that, we are already making adjustments based on the feedback we’ve been getting, and we’ll continue to do that in the weeks and months ahead.

Once things settle down on the production side, we’ll also be looking closely at how we get to air, and who does what, and I’m sure we’ll be making changes there as well to try as we try to balance the workload.

It’s also important that we continue to get your feedback on the changes and your own workload.

Thanks again for everything this week….

Jon

How can two people who call themselves journalists and an experienced administrator get it so wrong? Are they kidding themselves and trying to prop up a beleaguered staff? I hope so, because they all miss or ignore the main criticism. The news has less depth, less insight, less context and most important less interest to news viewers, the people who may actually want to watch CBC News.

Just to give you a sense of what people are writing in answer to the above comments I’ve chosen just a few out of hundreds, maybe thousands of viewer complaints:
at 9:16 PM ETttkillian wrote (quoting Richard Stursberg):

First Mr Stursberg, I haven’t read a single daily since the re-launch and crash. My opinions, which were posted within minutes of the end of Monday’s show are my own and not derived from any print media.

Second sir, you are a public broadcaster, you do not HAVE competition! You are not spending the money of a corporation or wealthy family, you are spending MY money! And believe me sir, if CBC patrons wish to see you removed, do not think for one moment it is not within our power to do so. Sir, take your ego, and stuff it! You are a civil servant on the tax payers payroll, you do not dictate to us, you accept direction from us.

Finally, standing, sitting or lying in the nude…the new format with it’s wizkid graphics, newsreel musical overlays, and greatly reduced news time quite simply sucks! And if you do not heed the comments from your viewers, they, and your job, will be gone (the latter should have already taken place 10 minutes after Monday’s broadcast)

To quote a fictitious journalist (who is a far sight more real than anything CBC is now offering) “We’re mad as hell, and we’re not gonna take it anymore.”

We’re not your competition sir, we are your boss!

truebluetoronto wrote:Posted 2009/10/31
at 3:02 PM ETPeter,
I watched all of the CBC “new national” on Monday and Tuesday. I watched parts of the “new national” on Wednesday and Thursday, between innings of the World Series. I don’t think I will be watching it again. Next week I will be watching CTV News, and if at the end of next week I feel better informed than I am after this week’s shambles then I won’t be back.

The National should be re-named “The Trivial” as it lacks substance and in-depth reporting; looks like it has been produced by teenagers and computer whizz-kids.

I have lived in this country for 30 years, and initially tried all the local TV news stations until I found my new home at CBC. It was until recently the nearest thing to the BBC on this side of the pond.

CBC now looks like the trailers at the movies, fast, swooshing noises and whizzy graphics, all teasing, but no substance. CBC now looks like so many American cable shows, all huff and puff, no thoughtful analysis

dudemeister wrote:Posted 2009/10/30
at 10:30 AM ETPlease rewrite this blog with the Title:

About the “lack of news”

This is the issue that is really matters and what people are mostly responding to here. Stupid flashy graphics, standing up, sitting down or delivering the news in Kundalini yoga poses – who cares. Everyone/all/tout le monde here hates this change for the actual content or lack thereof more than anything – Where is the international news – the thing on shoes was pathetic if that is what passes for international news stories now, where is the “depth”. Local news sucks now too – there isn’t anythign happening except people lining up for vaccinations apparently.

The reason it upsets people more than if it was another TV channel – this is our national broadcaster, and it appears to have been sabotaged.

-PeBo- wrote:Posted 2009/10/29
at 4:21 PM ETPeter, it’s unfair to point out special event news broadcasts where you have stood throughout the broadcast. If the news is covering an election or special event, then a change of format is expected.

You would look ridiculous (or pompous) sitting during a Town Hall.

I have also read through most of the coments that have been posted, and to say that they cover the entire spectrum, is simply playing with the facts. The comments have been overwhelmingly negative. The fact that we pay your salaries seem lost on all of you. Our opinions only matter when we are in agreement with your direction. If this is how you judge polls, then so much for trusting your analysis in future…not that it matters, I won’t be watching.

The music overlays, the standing, the speaking to co-workers and guest at your “take-out” counter, the crass sound effects and animations…it all comes together to make the National look cheap and derivative.

Sorry Peter, I have always trusted you and your broadcast, but tonight, I’ll tune in for Chantal, Alan and Andrew, but will not turn to to CBC until that time. I will simply get my news from Maclean’s and selected websites. The last vestige of respectable television news broadcasting is gone.

And quite simply, you should feel ashamed for defending the changes. (Then again, I remember when the National had enough respect for the news that it was shown without commercial interruption for the first half hour, so what could I possibly expect!)

Goodbye CBC news. You’ve been a trusted friend my entire adult life, but I demand more from my friends than what you have chosen to offer.

umarek wrote:Posted 2009/10/28
at 2:24 PM ETMr. Mansbridge,

If there was one thing I was afraid of, it was a comment coming from the management, saying that new format often provokes reactions. I am surprised that it comes from you.

Judging by the comments you have been getting, where the lack of “the chair” is a minor and ridiculous detail, in comparison to the format in which the news now is being presented, it is a disaster.

Your assertion that the comments “cover the spectrum” when in fact there is hardly anyone who has anything positive to say about, what is commonly perceived as FOX style news, tells us that your comment is a dishonest public relations press release.

I agree with you on one point however. Yes, you are getting a lot of good ideas, and for the most part they are telling you to scrap this horrible experiment. It is not only an insult on our eyeballs, but also on our intelligence.

Marek Urban
Ottawa

I guess you get the idea by now. Forget the lack of chairs, deal with the lack of news.

Filed under: Media Commentary , Jonathan Whitten, Peter Mansbridge, Richard Stursberg, The National

News Lite

I hope all of you are not too tired to read another review of the new The National. I thought it would be fair to wait a few days and see a few shows before wading into the fray. Unfortunately there has been no real argument so far. I have found only one positive review or comment about what the CBC hype machine calls “the new direction,” that comes from my old pal and normally an astute viewer of all that’s new and interesting in television, Denis McGrath. For a counterpoint to what I’m about to say please look at his blog ‘Dead Things on Sticks.’

As for the rest of what I’m hearing, here’s a few quotes:

“This is news lite. I can’t believe Peter Mansbridge is allowing this to happen.” That from a prominent CBC News team member.

“Well, I watched last night and, I have to tell you, I’m feeling abandoned. It’s all so damned fast and flashy. Even the new radio news … and I like Peter whatshisname as a reporter … I feel like he’s yelling at me. And what’s with the casual jargon of the anchors and reporters. What has happened to the concept of ‘excellence’? I am in mourning. Help!” This comes from a TV pro who I have always admired for her understanding of what works on television.

“Okay, maybe you can’t review a restaurant after ONE night, but how many times do you have to get food poisoning to stay away from it?
Just one example that epitomizes everything from both nights: “Research shows 82% of Canadians use the internet…” What research will we get tomorrow — the percentage of Canadians who use the toilet?! Or perhaps info about a machine that does NOT cure cancer? Oh, wait, we already got THAT today!
Just incredible…” This came in from one of the most talented producers at the Corp.

I have heard from about 15 current and former CBC News people and they all agree, they don’t like the new The National. Well, you say, these are insiders or people with ties to the way it used to be. You are right. But I also participated in a live blog with J-Source while “the new direction” was premiering. The polling they were doing showed over 70% of viewers hated or disliked the show.

The worst news of all for the CBC News honchos is the rumor going around the Corp itself. I could confirm the rumor but not the facts. Nobody is talking. The rumor is that over 700 comments came in to CBC after night one and all but 30 were negative.
It looks like the negative messages may be beginning to seep into the mindset of the news producers. By night three there were already a few minor changes. Peter was still standing, as was everyone else, but he never came out from behind the: what can I call it? It’s not a desk. It’s kind of a grounded UFO. He wasn’t left to wander and find a spot in studio. Second, there was an actual opening that promoted the stories coming up on the show. If you remember on night one, they went right into the first story cold. Also there was no weather hit halfway through the show. Pity, I’m dying to know about the new typhoon heading for Manila.

On the other hand, lots of the bad persists. There are still way too many promos. So many, in fact, that it feels like they are replacing the 20 minute documentaries that once appeared in this time slot. Worse still, most of the promos are for stories that the newscast does not deliver on, some of the promoted material even shows up as 20 second voice over, no story at all.

Oh, and did I mention Peter is still standing. Can we make our host look less comfortable on set? How about asking all his guests and fellow reporters to be even less comfortable than Peter? The best remark I saw was after the interview on night one with General Rick Hillier. Peter announced the general would be on The Hour after the news. Someone wrote in: “I bet George gives him a seat. And The Hour is the youthful, hip show.”

Wendy Mesley is one of my favorite people at CBC. She’s an excellent reporter and a tough interviewer. What the heck is she doing on this show? Her stories look and feel like unfinished Marketplace items where they forgot to tell us the point of the research. Her stuff is inane at best. What a waste.

The biggest problem of all though the lack of depth in most of the items. There were 10 voice-over items on show three. None got more than 30 seconds and none were given context or explanation. Is P.M. Harper’s first trip to China and India not more important than that? How about Hilary Clinton in Pakistan, especially on the day of more car bombings?

True, on night three they mined all they could on swine flu. It was over half the content of the program. Unfortunately it included a piece by Ian Hanomansing that was just a longer version and completely repetitious of what was in the opening story. It also featured two interviews with a doctor about what to do if you get swine flu. A, she was not the best at articulating her points and b, this was not really news. On a real newscast this could have been done graphically and succinctly in 45 seconds. It would have been easier to understand too. This segment is what we used to call a “sand bar” in my old newsroom. The show comes to a complete stop when it hits it.
From where I sit there was only one high quality worthwhile story on the entire newscast. It was Ioanna Roumeliotis’ opening item on swine flu. As for all the rest, I can pick them apart easily for their lack of depth, context, focus and journalism. The worst was probably Susan Ormiston wasting my time and yours asking Afghan President Karzai’s brother in a telephone interview if he took CIA money and whether he was a drug runner. “No” he said. Okay, thanks for talking to us.

What is the CBC trying to do here? They say they want a younger audience. Fine. But is talking down to them the best way to get young viewers? Being shallow? Look, if a youthful viewer is the type of person who will choose CBC News over CSI Miami or the Maple Leafs playing Dallas he or she is obviously not shallow. He or she want real content as much as the 60 year-old viewer. Pandering to youth is patronizing and bound to push serious people of all ages away.

The new The National is seriously flawed at best and leaning towards awful. The line-ups have made no sense. There is no natural flow to the stories. The stories when they appear are poorly reported and shallow. There is too much going on to distract and too little to hold the viewers’ attention. Thin gruel indeed.

I have a friend at CBC who predicted the whole thing would fall apart in six months and the real national news would find its way back on air. There will be no announcements, no full page ads in the newspapers. Sure we’ll be stuck with the pastel pink and blue set and even the big round thing that replaced the news desk, but the important things, the real stories, the journalism, the depth will return. Let’s all hope there will be enough viewers left to welcome it back.

Filed under: Media Commentary , CBC News, CSI Miami, Ian Hanomansing, Marketplace, Peter Mansbridge, Susan Ormiston, The Hour, The National

Failing Journalism: Who’s to Blame?

I got another note from a CBC staffer today questioning the journalism at the Corp. Once again it points out the lack of journalistic rigor at what is supposed to be our most trusted news operation. Does this sort of thing happen all over? Yes. Way too often. But CBC News is always tooting their horn about their journalistic bona fides. They are the ones you can trust, according to them, when a big story happens. What about the small stories?

Here’s the note that came in to me:

So I came in to work today and found that the late-night and overnight journalists had written a story about the death of a 13-year-old boy – suspected to be H1N1. Turns out there’s absolutely no facts to back up the claim – just some misguided/misunderstood comments from one distraught parent. You’d think that at least one fact in the following story might be checked by a CBC journalist before rushing to publish – but I guess that is no longer a concern. I read an article recently about CNN’s over-the-top coverage of a Sept. 11 Coast Guard training exercise in Washington. The writer said online news organizations like getting the ‘double hit’ – once for the original story – once for the correction.

This is just so sad that I can’t believe I work for an organization that is this bad.

See for yourself.

(The original headline said a minor hockey player had died … what the hell does playing hockey have to do with his death? Would we have written a headline saying ‘boy scout dies’ or ‘choir member dies’?)
A 13-year-old Toronto-area minor league hockey player has reportedly died from the H1N1 virus.
Evan Frustaglio died Monday evening at St. Joseph’s Hospital in Toronto. Evan’s family reportedly told CityNews that their son had died after falling ill with the H1N1 virus.
(Since when is CiytNews a credible source for information?)

Evan’s father, Paul Frustaglio, told the Toronto Sun the coroner’s office has confirmed his son died of the virus.

(Now we quote the Sun?)
(But the coroner’s office on Tuesday morning said it had never confirmed any such thing. The autopsy won’t be performed until sometime later on Tuesday – even then it will be almost impossible to blame a death specifically on H1N1 flu)
Evan visited a walk-in clinic Sunday after complaining of feeling ill with a sore neck and throat over the weekend, Frustraglio told the Sun.
(So it appears CBC does stories based entirely on reporting by other organizations – without ever talking to any of the principals? What shoddy and inept reporting. Is this the “new” CBC?)
The boy was sent home with a fever that appeared to be going down but was vomiting, his father said. Evan then collapsed after taking a bath on Monday and was taken to hospital, he said.

Medical officials have not yet confirmed a link between swine flu and Frustaglio’s death. It is also unclear if the boy had any other underlying medical conditions. (Hang on – didn’t the previous paragraph “confirm” that the child had died of the virus?)
‘You will be missed’ A Facebook memorial page has been set up for Evan and had more than 280 members by Tuesday morning.
Posters on the memorial page remembered Evan as a well-liked student and a skilled hockey player. “R.I.P. Evan. I’m so sorry that this happened, you will be be missed so much that it cant be expressed in words. You were a great kid,” wrote Masha Petrasinovic on the memorial page.
Evan was a right-winger with the Greater Toronto Hockey League’s Mississauga North Stars minor bantam AA team and played at a tournament in London over the weekend. The Minor Hockey Alliance of Ontario has sent an email to parents of players from the tournament confirming the death of a 13-year-old who had been at the games on the weekend. The youth died after suffering from a high fever and bouts of unconsciousness, the email said.

Two players from the youth’s team are also being quarantined after showing swine flu-like symptoms, the email said, recommending that anyone from the tournament with similar symptoms see a doctor. North Star coach Al Reisman told the Sun that teammates are devastated by the news. Counseling is being offered to the team and some ice time has been canceled. (Really – they cancelled ice time! It must truly be devastating!)
Precautions in place.
Kim Sutherland, whose son played at the tournament on the weekend, said the death has left some hockey parents on edge.
“There is interaction at all levels of the hockey game and play out of the same complex at various times so … there is potential there for all sorts of exchanges of things,” Sutherland said. Sutherland said swine flu concerns won’t affect her family’s involvement in hockey. “This can happen anywhere. It’s among us now and we’re just going to have to deal with it — can’t bubble wrap them,” she said.
John Gardner, president of the Greater Toronto Hockey League, told the Toronto Star precautions are already in place to combat the potential spread of the virus. “We don’t want people to over-react,” Gardner told the Star. “We will be acting responsibly and re-emphasizing all the safety measures. (Now CBC pulls quotes from the Toronto Star! Aren’t we the largest journalism organization in the country? Can’t we obtain one fact on our own?)
Vaccine available
Swine flu claimed 29 lives in Ontario, including several people in the Greater Toronto Area, during the first wave of the pandemic this spring. A Cornwall-area pre-teen girl believed to have had the H1N1 virus but no pre-existing medical condition also died in an Ottawa hospital on the weekend. The Eastern Ontario Board of Health said following the girl’s death that it is putting school-age children on its priority list for the H1N1 vaccine, which became available across most of Canada on Monday. Priority groups include individuals under the age of 65 who have chronic medical conditions, as well as pregnant women, children under the age of five and people living in First Nations or remote and isolated communities and health-care workers.

(Let’s see the CBC squirm out of this one.)

 

Okay, I’m sure most readers are going to blame the journalist. Fair enough, he or she did basically rip the story from other news sources and did not check the facts. But let’s look at what news organizations like CBC are doing. Once upon a time a reporter was responsible for one story per day on one platform. Today a reporter could be asked to do a report for CBCNN in the morning, local news at 5:30 and another story for The National. In some cases a French story and a piece for CBC Online could be part of the reporter’s day. Who has the time to do research?

 

It has been my experience that today’s young reporters are actually better prepared than the journalists I came into the business with 30 years ago. They are better educated and they know more about journalistic ethics and practices. But there are several things working against them. The most obvious is time. A TV reporter in the early 70’s shot on film. He or she would have to be back early to process the footage. That gave the reporter time to check the facts and think about the story. Now you can send a crew out at 5:00 and expect them to be on air at 6:00. The technology makes that possible. All that’s missing is time to think, edit and correct. Thus more mistakes get to air.

 

A second problem is the new youth movement on television. It was very tough to get to the national level, especially at CBC. Long apprenticeships in Regina, Sudbury and St. John’s were the norm. Getting to local news in Toronto or Vancouver was a coup. If you did a great job you could do the odd weekend or summer story for The National. Eventually, if you were terrific you got a job at The National. Today that entire process has been streamlined to get younger people on air. Experienced journalists have been shuffled off while they are still active. Why? because of the misguided idea that you can’t attract a youthful audience with 55 year-old reporters. Or is it to save money because most experienced reporters are at the top of the pay scale? Either way, people who are not quite ready for prime time are plying their trade at the highest level.

 

Then there’s the ludicrous workload I referred to earlier. You can’t ask a person to do a thoughtful, thorough job if you don’t give them the time and space to do it.

 

My fear is that most news bosses, especially at CBC, have never worked in the field for television. They have never reported for television. They have no idea what is possible and what isn’t. In the meantime, when there is a screw up it isn’t their fault. They didn’t write, produce, shoot, edit, or report the story. Take a step back. Who should be blamed for the failures of journalism today? The answer is everyone who has allowed the system to come to this.

 

By the way, for those who expected a comment on the CBC’s new launch, you will have to wait. I won’t review a show in its first week. It just isn’t fair. I’ll give them time to work out the bugs…I will say however, that I have yet to speak to anyone who liked the direction the show is going in. I appeared on a live blog at J-Source while the premiere was on and a full 70 percent of polled respondents did not like what they saw.

Filed under: Media Commentary , CBC News, CBCNN, H1N1, Swine flu

Pointing Fingers

Last week I received an anonymous email purportedly from CBC News staff that was sent to CBC President Hubert Lacroix. It took a few days to determine that this letter in fact came from inside the CBC and further that it was truly meant to go to Mr. Lacroix. I don’t know if he actually received the letter but I do know it really did come from CBC News staffers.

It is a terrible indictment of where CBC News is at today. Low morale, poor leadership, and a general malaise have overtaken the place. Perhaps this is part of the reason it has taken so long to launch the new CBC National News.

Here’s the letter:

Dear Mr. President,

A concerned group of staff are writing to inform you that CBC English Radio and Television are in a state of crisis and desperately require intervention.

Our current managerial structure seems to have been inspired by the mythical hydra whose many heads frequently consumed one another. Former executive vice president Harold Redekopp’s notorious “pylons” have now been replaced by “the Stursberg Labyrinth,” where daily management decisions have to be run up multiple reporting lines. While it was certainly a challenge to work efficiently and effectively in the previous management structure, the current system is an unmitigated disaster where everyone is forced to serve not two but ten masters.

Mr. Stursberg’s leadership choices have also strongly impacted daily News operations. When John Crookshank, the best thing to happen to CBC News in a decade, suddenly resigned a scant few months into his tenure, Jennifer McGuire was made head of News despite the availability of candidates with superior news-gathering credentials. That decision continues to have repercussions.

In a similar vein, Jill Troyer was made Director of Regional Programming, where she has utterly failed to gain the trust or confidence of those she was intended to represent. Ms Troyer is directly implicated in the sudden departure of Mike Linder from the CBC this week. We understand that Mr. Linder was an award winning journalist in his own right. He was, by all accounts, one of the most creative, charismatic, effective and popular managers in the entire English service. The Edmonton News show he re-built from the ground up is now universally regarded as one of the best in the country. While the specific reason for Mr. Linder’s departure is not known, we’ve learned that CBC Edmonton staff were so outraged they nearly rioted when the announcement was made, and would likely have “stormed the Bastille” if their jobs were not at risk. With his outstanding journalistic and managerial track-record, Mr. Linder will no doubt be scooped by the competition and CBC News will be exponentially poorer for his loss.

Even more disturbing than the above is the fact that Mr. Stursberg was overheard by CBC employees making highly disparaging remarks about you and your attempt to build strong, collaborative bonds between CBC management and the unions. We would like to state for the record that we greatly admire you collaborative management style, in particular, your willingness to listen openly and fairly to concerns staff have raised. Genuine honour and integrity are not qualities commonly associated with CBC’s senior management and your unique approach is deeply appreciated. We think it is very unfortunate that some who claim to represent you do not also share your ethical code.

Sadly, these are ugly times and we recognize that were the authors of this letter ever to be identified, our careers, incomes and pensions would all be jeopardized. As such, we regret to inform you that this email account will be deactivated as soon as this letter has been sent.

Mr. President, morale at every conceivable level of CBC English Services is at an all time low. As such, it has become necessary to publicly declare that “Rome is officially burning.” What is desperately needed now are more fire fighters and less fiddlers throughout CBC’s management system.

Yours in dismay,
Concerned CBC staff

Okay, it’s not the best written letter and it does get a bit childish when it points a finger at Mr. Stursberg’s alleged disagreement with the President’s direction. But the letter is a symptom of a very diseased operation.

A lack of money because of budget cuts, the remaining fallout from the lockout a few years back, the changes in leadership and the quality of the new people in charge, the project to renew the news and the subsequent changes, all these things have been piled on a beleaguered news staff. Any one of these things could hurt an organization, together they are deadly.

Where is CBC News at today? The latest fallout starts with the new direction of the news that practically bans all news documentaries. This was the one thing CBC News did that differentiated it from CTV and Global. On many nights it was the most interesting part of what has become a pedestrian newscast. From where I sit, it is a huge mistake.

Then came the reassignment of the staff that produced the documentaries. Some very talented people are cooling their heels in places they do not fit or would rather not be. Some have been pushed out of the Corp completely. Most of the people I speak to at CBC News claim they still do not know what is expected of them. The new National is supposed to start next week! Worse, when they speak to their bosses they are told they too do not know what is expected. Mixed signals abound. How long can a story be? Where will it run? Who do we pitch to? Staffers with 20 and 30 years experience don’t know where to turn.

At the same time some of CBC’s best on air talent has been banished to radio, Newsworld and retirement. The CBC News was weak on air before the changes, now they are close to laughable.

Finally, from what I have seen of the “new” direction so far, because in reality the news has already changed, only the new set, opening and music are still to be introduced, the content that has replaced the documentaries feels like filler. Non stories are being padded up to 3 or 4 minutes to fill the last 20 minutes of the program. In one such item I saw a group of kids, all of whom looked under 20, interviewed on the street and asked about what they will do to prepare for swine flu. Interestingly the script talked about those who remember the 1976 swine flu outbreak. These people were not even born in 1976. This is poor judgment, bad supervision and inexcusable journalism at the highest level of broadcast news in Canada.

The National, like any newscast succeeds or fails based on the people who do the work, their morale, their talent and their understanding of their jobs.  It is a given that morale is as low as it has ever been at CBC News, and that’s saying a lot. It looks from the outside like there is little understanding of the expectations of management. And finally, the talent level both on air and in management seems to be highly suspect.

Is it any wonder that The National’s ratings are less than half the audience at CTV National News?

Filed under: Media Commentary , CBC, CBC News, CTV, Global Television, Hubert Lacroix, The National

Dropping the Ball

A few years ago I was a guest on a Hamilton radio station discussing the proposition that sports journalism on television is an oxymoron. Brian Williams, who was still with CBC Sports at the time, was my opposite number on the debate. He took great umbrage at the proposition. His proof being his own excellent work on several Olympic games including the coverage of the Ben Johnson scandal and Ross Regabliatti’s near disqualification for having traces of marijuana in his blood among others.

Concerning himself, he was right. Brian Williams has made a long career of trying to actually practice sports journalism on TV. His recent Olympic and CFL mini-docs for CTV and TSN are no exception. Brian has proved to be a fine story teller and a prime example of how it should be done. But Brian could not name another television reporter who was doing the same. CBC did eventually produce an excellent weekly sports journalism show but today that’s long gone. Bruce Dowbiggin won a well deserved Gemini Award for his work on the Alan Eagleson scandal, but CBC sports refused to run his work so it ran on CBC News. Bruce is no longer a TV reporter, he’s a Globe and Mail columnist.

Now, name another sports journalist on TV today. I dare you. Rogers Sportsnet and TSN produce hours and hours of what purports to be sports “news” every week. A viewer is warned not to hold his or her breath waiting for journalism. For the most part, say 80 percent, the coverage consists of highlights from earlier action. On earlier shows there’s the odd preview of upcoming action. The rest of the show is filled with banter and lists of the top plays, best fights, whatever can be scrambled together from the archives to fill out the hours. But journalism, as in WHY an event or situation occurs and where it’s going, you won’t find it here.

It seldom existed on local television newscasts either. When you have only five or six minutes to recap the day’s events there is little room on the sportscast for actual journalism.

The one place I would expect some enterprising sports reportage in Canada is on hockey broadcasts. Now that games come in at just over two and one half hours there is a 30 minute hole to fill, and that’s on top of two 15 minute between period segments. So where are the stories? Where’s the field work? Where’s the old “up-close-and-personals” that we see on the NFL coverage and even NBA coverage. The same sportscasters that lament the lack of star power in hockey are doing nothing to alleviate the problem.

Hockey Night in Canada is truly a wasteland. The first intermission is always Coach’s Corner with Don Cherry and Ron MacLean. I will be the first to admit that it’s an entertaining segment. It’s like waiting for a train wreck. When is Don going to say something stupid about fighting or foreign born players? How will Ron get a word in and when he does what silly pun will the viewers be treated to? Between Don’s “I told you so’s” and Ron’s slavish support of the dinosaurs of hockey it is all too predictable and lacks any semblance of information.

Cut to the second intermission and the viewer is treated to a panel of rumor mongers led by Al Strachan. Has anyone kept tabs on how many times Al’s insights turn out to be correct? I suspect they are few. In any case this is inside hockey talk that speaks to a small minority of Canadians. If you want to sell the game and increase the ratings it’s time to go back to story telling. When I was a youngster there were actual feature stories on players, coaches, owners, referees, etc. They created interest in the people around hockey. They introduced us to the personalities that make any sport more accessible.

It’s not any better at TSN. The same panel returns intermission after intermission with the same predictable opinions. No depth. Nothing new. Cheapo TV that fills minutes rather than enterprising reporting and journalism that could really wow an audience. On TSN they even use the same formula for football, but at least on CFL coverage they do have the Brian Williams stories.

It is frightening to see how low game coverage has sunk to in Canada. Interestingly this has come at a time when sports journalism has been growing by leaps and bounds in this country. The newspapers are doing a great job. The Globe and Mail in particular has a fine group of writers and columnists. You seldom pick up a sports section without seeing great stories, interesting commentary and real insight into what is happening in the sports world. Writers like Stephen Brunt, Dave Shoalts, and Bruce Dowbiggin in the Globe and Damien Cox and Doug Smith in the Toronto Star never seem to fail in finding new stories and new angles that make one think about sports in new and interesting ways. They engage their readers with new information and new insights.

Even on radio, where sports radio has talk shows like Bob McCown’s show on The Fan 590, to delve into the issues by going to experts and people in the know. Sure, they have panels too, but they don’t stop there. McCown and the other radio hosts get interviews with general managers, coaches and players. They talk to Jim Balsillie and his lawyers. They get legal experts and business experts to help us understand the underlying decisions being made by leagues and teams. There is a strong attempt to answer the only real journalistic question: WHY.

At a time when sports is as much about the legal and business affairs of players, teams and leagues Canadian television is dropping the ball.

Filed under: Media Commentary , Ben Johnson, Bob McCown, Brian Williams, Bruce Dowbigging, CBC Sports, CFL, Coach's Corner, CTV, Damien Cox, Dave Shoalts, Don Cherry, Doug Smith, Hockey Night in Canada, Jim Balsillie, NBA, NFL, Rogers Sportsnet, Ron MacLean, Ross Regabliatti, Stephen Brunt, The Globe and Mail, The Toronto Star, TSN

Battle of the Blades

When I first heard about it I thought it was one of the truly dumbest ideas for a new television show that had ever been contemplated. A bunch of rough and tumble former hockey players lacing on figure skates and pairing with some of Canada’s best female pairs skaters, who thought this would be a good idea? Only the CBC could come up with this concept and allow it to get to air.

Guess what? I was wrong. I hesitatingly tuned in to what I expected to be massive disaster. Perhaps I even subconsciously wanted it to fail. I used to like to think I knew a good idea from a bad one. But I was hooked. Not only is Battle of the Blades a well produced and conceived TV show, it is utterly charming entertainment that both men and women can love and most of all, and this is what the CBC and the producers deserve the most credit for, it is the first originally Canadian reality show. Battle of the Blades may even be the first truly original Canadian TV show.

For those of you who didn’t tune in on Sunday night I will describe the show. Half-a-dozen former National Hockey League players, from goons like Tie Domi to pretty boys like Ron Duguay, are teamed up with some of the best female “pairs” skaters this country has produced. They train for a “LIVE” free skate together and their performances are judged by a panel that includes two great Canadian figure skating stars, Sandra Bezic and Dick Button and a third judge that will change every week, in this case it was former L.A. Kings goaltender Kelly Hrudey. Of course there’s the great build-up with lots of pictures of the hockey players falling over their toe picks and dropping the women in practice sessions. All this beautifully sets up the expectation of disaster. Finally we come to the time to perform and a glitzy, beautifully lit set has been created at Maple Leaf Gardens with a live audience on hand to lend atmosphere to the proceedings.

As it turns out almost all the hockey players do very well. Ron Duguay in fact, looks like he could have been a great figure skater had he not been a very good hockey player. Sure most of the artistic skating was performed by the women, but the men, except for Bob Probert, the former Chicago Black Hawk fighter, did not look out of place.

It was a truly riveting hour of TV. Yes, many watched to see the men fall or the possibility of a train wreck, but what every viewer got was not disappointing: they were entertained.

Where the show sparkled was in its down home Canadian charm. This was not a program that attempted to be anything that it wasn’t. There was no pretense. It was a bunch of jocks, regular guys, Canadians having a great time doing the unexpected. The female skaters seemed to enjoy it as much as the hockey players. The charm of the characters continually shone through. In the end I found myself liking each and every one of the skaters.

Donald Button was perfect as both a judge and a personality. He made it fun by being willing criticize as well as praise.

The only negative I could find was Ron MacLean. Is it me or is MacLean becoming so predictable with his bad puns and dry humour that I prefer to turn off anything he is involved with. A few years back I wondered why CBC was giving him a hard time when his contract was up. Now I think it’s time for Ron to hang up the mic and for CBC to find another sports host.

When Battle of the Blades comes back next year, and based on the great ratings for week one I’m sure it will be back, I would like to see a few more hockey stars like Ron Duguay and Tie Domi, guys who are showmen; hockey players who are happy to display their infectious enthusiasm. Skating ability is secondary on this show, having fun is what it is all about. That goes for the audience too.

The TV Tax – An Update
On a very different note, a few weeks ago I would have bet the farm that the CRTC was going to rubber stamp the CTV, Global and CBC request to be paid by cable and satellite companies for distributing their signals. The bogus claims by CTV and Global that this was to save local TV seemed to have some resonance with both the politicians and the people.

Now, after an effective counter attack by the cable and satellite companies it appears the networks might not get their undeserved millions. Polls are showing a vast majority of Canadians are against what is really a new tax on television in Canada. I don’t know if this is the reason but the Harper government has stepped in. They have asked the CRTC to look into how the new charges would affect Canadian TV viewing and how Canadians feel about the new levies.

To me this seems like code for “kill the new tax.” The CRTC is supposed to work arms length from the government but the request by the Conservatives is at worst a delaying tactic and at best a signal to the bureaucrats that they would be making a mistake to give the networks a $50 million windfall for nothing in return.

Stay tuned. We will hear a lot more about this before a decision is made.

Filed under: Media Commentary, Political Commentary , Battle of the Blades, Bob Probert, CBC, CRTC, CTV, Donald Button, Global TV, Kelly Hrudey, Maple Leaf Gardens, Ron Duguay, Ron MacLean, Sandra Bezic, Stephen Harper, Tie Domi

Bye, George

There is one show on Canadian television that I just do not get, that’s The Hour with George Stroumboulopoulos.

It’s not the content. The interviews are generally light and fluffy and even fun befitting a late night entertainment show. The guests are generally good, I would even say better than most of the Canadian talk shows that preceded The Hour. The format is just about right. And George, he’s glib and engaging in the way a late night TV host should be most of the time.

So what’s my problem?

In fact I have several, but they are so interconnected I don’t know where one ends and the next begins. I’ll start with the fact that while the CBC and the Canadian media treat George Stroumboulopoulos like he’s a media star he in fact, can’t draw flies to his show. There is no real audience to speak of. The show’s numbers are similar to those of the dismal local news on CBC. Considering the advertising dollars and promotional time the show gets it should be a late night staple challenging Lloyd Robertson and CTV National News. I think Lloyd gets more viewers in Calgary than George gets coast-to-coast. It’s not a bad show. So where is the audience?

I believe the CBC and George Stroumboulopoulos are doing each other a grave disservice. The CBC chose George to be host because he is young and hip. He never wears a sports jacket, let alone a tie. The earring and the haircut are supposed to speak to the youthful viewers the network is trying to attract. As usual the idea was much better on paper than the reality on TV for the CBC. After several years it should be painfully obvious to all but the most indifferent observers that young people are not going to tune in to CBC for a talk show, even if George is the host. The other painful side of that coin is that typical CBC viewers are not going to watch the likes of George Stroumboulopoulos. He just doesn’t speak to the 50-somethings from Fredericton and Saskatoon who just finished watching Peter Mansbridge grasping for every last political straw in Ottawa for close to an hour.

George works. We know that from his days at Much Music and City-TV. Young viewers loved his work and flocked to any show he was associated with. If George did the exact same show at City he would have a hit on his hands. Most people in the industry I talk to understand this. What nobody seems to get is why the CBC has allowed this failure to continue and why George Stroumboulopoulos stays with a gig that clearly puts him in the wrong place at the wrong time.

The Hour’s numbers are a black hole for the Corp sucking up advertising time and dollars with little or no payback. George’s street cred has to be hurting. Cool people just don’t work for the CBC. He must know this. I’m sure George would be grabbed up by any one of CBC’s competitors given the opportunity to get him. The end of The Hour would surely be a win-win situation for both George and the network.

The first time I heard the CBC was trying to attract a more youthful audience was in 1984. The powers-that-were tried to get me to dumb down my newscast, cut the length of news stories, be more sensational. I refused then because I believed CBC viewers had expectations of high quality news and information they could trust. I was proven right when we more than doubled our audience. But now, even though the network has never succeeded in drawing younger audiences, 25 years later the CBC is making the same mistaken assumptions.

In the 500 channel universe it is more important than ever to know your audience and keep them happy. A niche is a good thing. Especially if the niche, in CBC’s case, is the largest portion of the available audience: baby boomers and the elderly. By abandoning them, the Corp is abandoning any hope of success. We are all taught to play to our strengths, focus on what we know, so why isn’t the CBC doing this? Is it the ad dollars that won’t be forthcoming because CBC is not attracting females 18 to 49? That’s silly. No network in Canada is less dependent on advertising. A huge audience would go far further to cement their future. It would be very difficult for Harper’s Tories to cut CBC’s budget if more than a million people were tuned in to all or most of CBC’s offerings.

Okay, maybe it’s because they worry about their future. If the entire audience gets old and dies who will watch? The truth is CBC has always had an older audience. When people reached a certain age they somehow began to watch more CBC. It has been a natural progression for over 60 years. Be happy with that natural progression. All the other networks have been TV training wheels for CBC viewers. At a certain age the viewers expect more depth, more quality and CBC has been there to give it to them. With this quest for youth CBC is giving away its niche, losing its advantage and perhaps throwing away its future.

If you want proof look at CBC Radio, it has never done better. CBC Radio One is number one in several markets. And what shows are selling? Metro Morning, As It Happens, Sunday Morning. In fact most of the newer edgier programs are anchors pulling the network’s ratings down. Radio Two’s changes have cut their ratings in half. I am told by avid listeners that Radio Two has been sneaking on more and more Classical music and dropping the nutty content. They have not admitted their mistakes with words but their actions are speaking for themselves.

The CBC’s future and its success depend on being the best CBC possible rather than trying to be a bad U.S. network imitation. Perhaps the bosses will wake up one day and realize this. Perhaps I am dreaming.

Filed under: Media Commentary , As It Happens, CBC, CBC Radio, City-TV, George Stroumboulopolis, Lloyd Robertson, Metro Morning, Peter Mansbridge, Radio One, Radio Two, Sunday Morning

Missing: The New National

The new television season has started. Network after network are trotting out their new programs and their popular returning shows hoping to win a bigger piece of the ratings pie. The competition for viewers gets fiercer and fiercer every year, new networks, the internet, superstations, there are more and more challengers for the eyeballs of North American TV viewers.

The biggest networks have just a few weeks to attract viewers to their offerings in hopes that the audience will like what they see and make the viewing of the network shows a regular weekly thing. All the networks know that habit plays a huge role in securing big numbers. Once a TV consumer is hooked on CSI or NCIS the likelihood is that he or she will come back week after week. That’s how hits are made and ratings are grown. Everyone knows that, right?

Wrong. The good folks at CBC are smart enough to get Being Erica and Little Mosque on the Prairie going but where is the new CBC National News. It seems the large brains behind the revamp and renewal of The National are not planning to get the new and improved newscast to air until some time in October. That’s, let me get this straight, after viewers have had the opportunity to get hooked again on their old favorites or be seduced by the new offerings available on CTV, Global and the U.S. networks.

What the heck is going on at CBC News? What have they been doing all summer? In fact what have they been doing since last winter when the decision to make big changes was taken?

Let’s go back to the basic premise of what CBC News is trying to accomplish. They want to make the news faster paced. They want to remove long form journalism and replace it with a fifty minute CNN style newscast. They came up with this plan because they saw CNN’s ratings soar during the run up to Obama’s election victory and during the economic crisis. They have not considered CNN’s huge ratings drop in the past nine months to a year. Hello! It was the big news stories that led to CNN’s big numbers, not their format. All news numbers have suffered in the past months. ABC, NBC, CBS, CTV and yes, The National have seen their numbers drop, in The National’s case to under 500,000 regular viewers at a time when there is little or no competition.

So whether you agree or disagree with CBC’s long range news plans, the question remains: why are they not on the air attempting to take a bite out of the available new season audience before viewer preferences are set in stone?

From the outside looking in it seems to be an incredible lack of organization. What they are attempting to do is in fact easy. Just take what you’ve done in the first 25 to 30 minutes of the program and add another 20 minutes. Sure there will be new bells and whistles but those can be created in a month by the most incompetent of networks. The problem, I am told, is that none of the workers, the people who actually get the show on the air every night, know what’s happening. They have not been told what’s expected of them. They have not been told what their new jobs are. They have not been let in on the specific plans for the new newscast. How long can an item be? Six minutes? Four minutes? Whatever it is worth in air time? Nobody seems to know.

New news hubs have been created, planning, investigative, health. Old areas have been turned into news hubs meant to serve all of CBC News, local, national and Newsworld. But they don’t know what is expected of them. So what are they doing? Some are continuing to act as they did before the changes came, others are twiddling their collective thumbs trying to understand what they should be doing and how.

All of this begs the question, less than a month before they are supposed to debut, do the managers know what the new National will look like and do they know what the staff should be doing to accomplish their goals. If they do, why are they not telling their beleaguered workers? If they don’t, what have they been doing for 40 hours per week over the last six months?

In the meantime the contradictory rumors are flying around “the corpse.” Documentaries will not be banned. No story will be over four minutes.

Besides the wrong headedness of the basic premises that the new newscast is based on, besides missing the beginning of the new season, besides the incredible lack of organization, besides the complete lack of internal and external communication, besides the complete lack of morale they are fomenting, what are the managers of CBC News doing? If anyone knows please let me know.

Filed under: Media Commentary

The Late Show starts early

Those in the know: the critics, the intelligentsia, the elites have already started. After one show Jay Leno is getting panned unmercifully. His interview with Kanye West, just one day after West’s major faux pas at the VMA’s, is being cited as an example of Leno’s inability to connect with his guests. Leno is being demonized for asking Kanye what his dead mother would say about his rude antics the night before, a middle-America question if there ever was one. Leno’s monologue, they say, was just not funny.

Still, the same critics, as always, loved Jerry Seinfeld and admitted the musical number at the car wash was both funny and good.

Let’s take a step back here. While I am no fan, the truth is Leno knows his audience. They want big name stars (Seinfeld, Oprah, West, Jay-Z, Rihanna) and they got them. They want jokes they understand and don’t want to have to think about. They want to be entertained. The quality of the interviewing is not important. The fact that the audience could see Kanye West and hear him attempt to answer for what happened just one day earlier, as the commercial says, was priceless.

I know, I know, Leno is no Letterman. For NBC, that’s a good thing. The last thing any network is looking for is a cult hit. Cult hits are for cable. NBC needs the masses to jump on board. We’re talking prime time here, not late night. The only question is will audiences watch Leno when the blockbuster dramas begin next week? The answer, I think, is that it depends on whether Leno can continue to get the biggest names in show biz to appear on his program, especially when there is controversy involved. If so the audience will grow. If Leno gets big enough audiences, the stars will have to appear. Prime time and a big audience to sell yourself or your new movie is a mighty big draw. The bigger the audiences the more stars, the more stars the bigger the audiences.

I see the Leno show as the perpetual second choice at ten p.m. If you don’t like the ABC or CBS drama Leno becomes a real choice, something different, alternate programming, better than watching the Fox Seinfeld re-runs for the 52nd time. Leno’s numbers should be especially good when the networks begin their inevitable re-runs. CBC ratings shot up the year of the strike in the U.S. when the networks were forced to re-run show after show. Leno will be especially strong in December and during the summer when there is little new to watch on television. If he attracts the biggest stars he will also get viewers to PVR his show.

All-in-all it’s an interesting strategy for NBC. They looked at Leno who consistently beat Letterman at 11:30 and concluded he speaks to middle-America. His appeal is wide. Guests don’t hate or fear him. Many stars just don’t want to appear on Letterman to be abused. Leno’s interviews are soft, seldom does he ask the hard question or demean his guests. He’s a risk-free commodity, no home runs, but no strike outs either.

The real bottom line here is the bottom line. Leno’s show is incredibly cheap compared to any drama. It’s even cheap compared to some of the big reality shows. NBC can produce a week of Leno for less than it costs to make a single episode of Law and Order. So audiences will have to be really dismal to force the cancellation of this show. Think about 20/20 and Dateline, both shows are perennial ratings losers yet both programs have had long lives on network prime time. The reason: they are cheap. Even with poor ratings the programs make enough money to not just pay for themselves, but to actually make a healthy profit.

So let’s not argue about whether we like Leno or not, or whether he’s as good as Letterman. The fact is his non-obtrusive appeal and ability to attract big names to his show is exactly what NBC was looking for. Television audiences have never been known to accept the high concept or avant garde. CSI draws way more viewers than Mad Men. Sure it hurts to contemplate the mediocrity that network television so often aspires to. But in the end where does the fault lie? With the networks who need to make money to survive or the consumers who chose American Idol in huge numbers?

Cheap, or as my former partner used to say, “at a price,” is what most network TV is all about. We saw it first with reality television. Then came the big game shows. Now it’s the 21st century talent shows. If Leno succeeds will his success mark the beginning of a trend to prime time talk and variety? I think it will. The copycats always follow every success. In the end the real scary prospect is how reality, game shows, talent contests and now talk could squeeze drama and sit-coms off the networks. Just when CBC decides to get into drama in a big way, U.S. networks are running in the opposite direction. Costs of up to $3 million an episode will do that. The golden age of television is long gone. Welcome to the bronze age.

If you get the opportunity please go to www.newsy.com/video/death_of_the_american_actor/ for an interesting American view on what’s happening to network TV.

Filed under: Media Commentary , 20/20, ABC, Amrican Idol, CBC, CBS, CSI, Dateline, David Letterman, Jay Leno, Jerry Seinfeld, Kanye West, Mad Men, NBC, Oprah

Local News, deja vu all over again

I don’t know if you have watched the new 90 minute CBC local newscasts where you live. If it happens to be Toronto, don’t bother. The good folks at CBC local news in Toronto have managed to squeeze 20 minutes of news into their 90 minute package. I sure hope it is better elsewhere in Canada but I fear it can’t be. Let’s face it, a city of 5 million has a lot more stories than a city of 250,000 or even a million.

I tried to be fair. I didn’t review the show during the first week to give the producers, reporters, hosts and writers time to get their act together. I even chose an excellent local news day to tape and parse the program. But I was highly disappointed by the effort.

If filling 90 minutes was the goal, then the local news team delivered. There was no dead air. On the other hand the constant repetition of the same facts and pictures over-and-over again was enough to drive even the most passive viewer to throw a brick at the television.

The newscast is broken up into three shows: 5:00, 5:30, and 6:00. None of the programs have a distinct personality and none of them deliver a comprehensive take on the day’s news. Basically each half-hour is the same as the last. Same stories. Same reporters. Same basic feel.

The five o’clock show had three produced news stories, none of them one of the major local stories of the day and only one produced by the Toronto team. The report out of Ottawa on a possible federal election by Julie Van Dusen was dropped in as a kicker, the last story. It was a dreadful piece that broke all the conventions of television reporting, had few pictures and didn’t really explain the story. So maybe it was good to bury it at 5:28. There were two weather casts, the second one overly long and there were about eight minutes of commercials; excessive no? But what was most bothersome was the way the main stories were treated. Four different reporters standing around on the street telling us radio style, what they found. Sure they dropped in the odd clip and picture, but they did not produce reports. Oh, and there were 10 promos for what was coming up later on the 5:30 and 6:00.

The 5:30 newscast opened with the same story done in exactly the same way as on the 5:00. I would have thought it impossible but the “Breaking News” host fumbled her way through the same script making even more mistakes than her first try.
Once again produced stories were hard to find. There were three in the half hour. This time two were produced locally and one was actually on one of the big stories of the day. The “i-desk” sort of produced another story on Ryerson University orientation using a tiny camera that made it look like a bad internet piece. I don’t know why, but the “i-desk” host then promoted the camera he used. Was the camera a freebie? Since when does CBC plug product in the news?

Once again the show was dominated by eight minutes of commercials and two weather casts. It’s easy to fill 90 minutes when half the time is eaten up by weather and commercials. In this half-hour there were ONLY six promos for stories coming up later on the news.

Okay, I said to myself, the plan is to pack all the good stuff into the six o’clock package. I was prepared for a dynamite production in the time slot with the most available viewers.

It was not to be. The six began exactly the same way as the five and the five-thirty. The “Breaking news” desk host once again fumbled her way through the same facts and pictures as we had seen twice before. In this half-hour there were four produced stories. I am being generous. One was a series of man-in-the-street interviews; the lowest form of what passes for journalism. A second was a repeat of one of the produced stories from the first half-hour.

In this portion of the 90 minutes there were, count ‘em, three weather casts and 7 ½ or 8 more minutes of commercials. In fact the newscast was mostly made up of more repetition of the same facts presented in the same way as the first two half-hours.

On a day in which there was a lot of news CBC local produced 8 stories to fill a 90 minute newscast. By my calculation that’s about 15 minutes or ¼ of the time, in comparison there were about 24 minutes of commercials and about 13 minutes of the same weather over-and-over.

90 minutes of bad smoke and crappy mirrors is not going to cut it with even the most unsophisticated audiences. I don’t blame the producers. I blame CBC management. You can’t add airtime to an already starving show and expect success. Without more money and more staff you are dooming the local news to failure. The news people are doing their best with what they have. It would be either folly or stupidity to expect more. From where I sit, the latter wins.

If the local CBC local news is better where you are, please let us know.

Filed under: Media Commentary , CBC, CBC News, CBLT, commercials, local news, Ryerson University, weather