Medium Close Up

Icon

The real story about media that you won't find in the mainstream media.

Bad News – Good TV

The G-8 and G-20 summits have come and gone and I dare any news organization to ask Canadians what the world powers accomplished in Toronto. I do not believe that 1 percent of Canadians know what was in the final communiqué. But, ask Canadians what happened on the streets of “Hogtown” during the weekend and you are sure to get in depth responses. There is no better magnet for airtime than violence, destruction, fire and mass arrests. I say this because it highlights the incredible failure of our police forces and politicians.

Based on what I saw on TV and what credible reporters are saying it is patently obvious that the security plan was flawed at best and really, let me be clear here, it didn’t serve the people of Toronto and Canada.

The police missed the boat on Saturday. They were so busy worrying about the politicians behind the security fence that they forgot about the citizens outside the barrier. The result was widespread destruction along several major shopping streets in the city, police cars trashed and burned, media trucks vandalized and televised pictures of the rioting taking over the airwaves. Free access for the “Black Bloc” looked to me like it was part of the police plan…I’m not saying they wanted or condoned vandalism, I’m saying they didn’t care to stop it. Keeping the protesters away from the fence was their only priority.

So then comes a Saturday night where journalists quite rightly question the police tactics and frankly make the security people look unprepared for the reality on the streets. The mayor of Toronto was questioned. The Toronto police chief was grilled. The federal minister in charge of security was dragged into the mess even though he never left Ottawa. The police failure was denied by everyone in charge. The pictures and reports made liars of all the officials.

The criticism worked. Only it worked too well. The security forces reacted to the criticism by going overboard on Sunday. On a day when it sure looked to me like all the protest was generally peaceful the police began rounding up anyone and everyone who hit the streets. Among the arrested were TV camera operators, yup the police claim they couldn’t tell who was a protester and who was a rioter, fair enough. But did they think a guy carrying a $40,000 dollar camera with network decals was a rioter? They arrested reporters. They arrested teenage schoolgirls. They arrested dentists. They arrested anyone wearing black clothes. It was beyond stupid and undemocratic.

As the arrested were let out, one-by-one they told their stories of police brutality and of putting people in small cages and keeping the handcuffed for hours and hours. One man was refused treatment for a broken arm. Another was ignored when he explained he was diabetic and needed insulin. For one strange afternoon Toronto became Tehran and you know, the politicians and police sounded a lot like their counterparts in Iran.

There is no excuse for the vandalism and rioting that took place in Toronto on Saturday. The folks in black should have been stopped arrested and had the book thrown at them. If the police were where they should have been, protecting citizens and property, they would have been able to do just that. Their claim that they couldn’t find the rioters who were using tactics to mislead the police do not hold water. The TV cameras found them. The radio and newspaper reporters found them.

Which brings me to some excellent and some not so excellent work done by the media in covering the events on the streets. First kudos go out to local reporters and crews from CTV, CITY and CBC-Toronto who did a credible job of telling the story while the network reporters were all but invisible. The Toronto Star had the best coverage of events all weekend and the best take on the events after the weekend was over. CBC Radio did an excellent job.

The losers in the coverage this weekend were CBC and Global. When Peter Mansbridge arrived to cover the events live, late Saturday afternoon and he was saddled with nothing but old tired shots we had seen for hours on CBC NN and only one national reporter, Susan Ormiston who seemed overwhelmed and was reduced to using the pictures gathered by local crews. The coverage was better before the network arrived. By Sunday night’s National the CBC was left in the dust. CTV was all over the mass arrests, the police overreaction, the scene at the detention center. CBC was still rehashing Saturday’s events using the same old pictures. The National was a day late and as the saying goes, a dollar short. CTV was terrific.

I only mention Global because they did what they do historically. They didn’t compete. Global never made it to air Saturday afternoon. I guess a second rate golf tournament could not be interrupted. I remember when I was at Global and got a major scoop. We received a leak of the federal budget. The powers at the network refused us airtime because we were running “Wiseguy.” The more Global changes, the more it stays the same.

Much of the discussion today has turned to citizen journalism. Everyone with a mobile phone is now a news source. Better get used to it people, this trend will not go away it will only grow. I’m not sure what to make of it. As far as pictures are concerned I am supportive, but when it comes to commentary I worry about the sources.

One outstanding use of the new technology came from Steve Paikin. He used Twitter to inform faster than any TV, radio or newspaper could. His tweets were informative and right on the money. It was some of the best journalism of the weekend. Great work Steve.

Late addition: Mea Culpa. It seems that Global did break into their golf coverage at least twice for about 15 minutes each time. Not the kind of coverage CTV, CITY and CBC NN were providing but Kevin Newman anchored the short hits.

Filed under: Media Commentary, Political Commentary, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

CBC News is Revolting

You know, you can’t take your eyes off the CBC for even a second. Anytime it looks like there is going to be peace and quiet and an opportunity to sit back and enjoy the hockey playoffs without having to be annoyed by their ever weaker TV newscast, the staff and management of the Corpse somehow find the time to air their dirty laundry.

The latest is an internal survey of 24 CBC Radio national news reporters. The survey was done by a few of the reporters themselves without the okay of management and the results are startling. In all my years in broadcasting, newspapers and on the outside looking in I have never come across a more clear condemnation of the direction that management is taking.

For those of you who don’t know, the same new CBC direction that produced the dreadful new National has had an effect on all of CBC News. Radio and TV reporters now all report to the same desk through what CBC calls “the hub.” The hub is a news desk that was supposed to centralize and make more efficient the assignment process. Thus one reporter and one crew showing up to a media conference rather than one from local TV, one from national TV and two more from local and national radio. It’s a good concept that is used by many successful news organizations and should have saved the CBC both money and manpower, but somehow management has botched the organization of the hub and managed to turn off the news staff. The hub, I am told is too large, too unwieldy and more often than not, bereft of ideas. Worse, it is not taking direction from the reporters in the field across Canada who are in the best position to lead and inform on what stories are interesting and possible.

Here are a few of the amazing responses to the survey:

When asked to compare morale in the national news service 95.2% said it was “lower than ever during my career.” The other 4.8% just said it was low.

When asked if there was a strong commitment to journalism at the moment, only 4.8% agreed. 76.2% disagreed.

Asked to compare the new hub to the old system 83.3% said it was “more difficult/complicated and 79.2% said there is less communication and more unpleasant surprises.

97.5% disagreed with the statement “I feel involved in decisions that influence my work as a national reporter.”

Perhaps most interesting, considering the hub was created to stop conflicts 0% agreed that it has done so and 81% say the integration of TV and radio has not benefited radio news programming.

Not surprisingly, based on the numbers you have seen so far, 100% say “state of radio culture compared to a year ago,” is worse and all but one reporter disagree that radio news is on the right course.

It is hard to believe that there could be a more damning indictment of CBC news management and the direction it has taken. I had one CBC news employee call me to say that if the TV reporters were polled in the same way the results would be the same. That person went on to say that if the news and current affairs staff behind the scenes in both radio and TV were asked the same questions they too would be similarly disaffected and upset.

How do you respond to something like this? Good old Jennifer McGuire, the General Manager and Editor in Chief of CBC News, still living in her bizzaro world that seems to have no resemblance to the one the rest of us live in had this to say in a memo to staff:

First of all, by all measures of success – in terms of audiences and journalism – our radio programs are meeting audience needs. It doesn’t mean there isn’t room to make them better, but they are not broken. They are performing well, to record audiences in fact.

Secondly, if you were to follow the blogs and columns (including some from disgruntled former employees), it reads as if CBC News has abandoned the cornerstone of its mandate: doing quality journalism. Nothing can be further from the truth. The truth is that quality journalism is still our biggest priority. As part of news renewal, we began a discussion about what defines quality journalism, how should it be showcased, and how we make sure it meets the needs of all Canadians in 2010 and beyond. But make no mistake: the quality is still ever present. We have had numerous examples of original, enterprise, exclusive and investigative stories on all our platforms in recent weeks, the most recent being Dave Seglins’ dogged pursuit over the weekend of the investigator linked to the Jaffer-Geurgis story.

My final point is about the culture we want to create here in CBC News. Some of the comments made public about colleagues are not attributed, unsubstantiated and unconscionable.

This is damaging. And let’s be clear, it damages us all in the public’s mind, including the authors and participants in the survey. It embarrasses us all. And all of you are working incredibly hard and deserve accolades.

So, while I totally understand the motivation of former CBC’ers with an axe to grind, I am more perplexed as to why people who are invested in CBC News would not engage in conversations through channels that would actually make things better.

My point is not to censor what you have to say, nor hide the fact that there are still things to fix and work to do, but rather to encourage you if you have concerns or feedback to engage in the process of making it better and moving us forward.

Jennifer, Jennifer please. Pay attention to your employees. They are trying to tell you that the plan is not working. Radio numbers may be holding but TV news numbers are at historical lows even with the new rating system that’s inflating numbers at CTV and Global. I have yet to meet a single person who thinks, as you seem to, that quality journalism is still a goal at CBC News. In fact most people I talk to lament the disappearance of quality journalism. The example, by the way, of the Jaffer-Guergis story being a highlight of CBC journalism is kind of humorous. I guess Jennifer either doesn’t read the Toronto Star or worse she doesn’t even know where her own stories are coming from. CBC News has been following every lead the Toronto Star digs up. If there is something that has appeared on CBC News before the Star reported it I must have missed it.

As one CBC staffer told me you have to feel sorry for the reporters and news staffs they didn’t cut 2 minutes out of World Report, fire the host, change the staff…(then) do the same thing at World at Six…they didn’t add 30 minutes to local TV news, shift them into an afternoon dead zone…told them to follow everything the consultants said to the letter…instead of interesting, informative journalism we have the same drek stories you find on any local station…

CBC management as it stands today has lost their news and current affairs staffs. Nobody is buying the bull. In baseball or hockey when a manager or a coach loses the room they have to be fired. That time has come for the CBC.

Filed under: Media Commentary, , , , , , , , ,

CBC in the News

All things considered, the short four day week before Good Friday was a momentous week for our national broadcaster. The CBC managed to make headlines for two negative stories, while making no headlines for breaking a big story on their national newscast.

Let’s start with The National’s excellent two part documentary on the rules that Canadian pilots work under. This was great journalism. The documentary showed how tired airline pilots can be dangerous to the health and survival of their passengers. The item also showed what other jurisdictions are doing to combat this problem.

In past years an expose of this sort would have demanded a massive response by Canadian newspapers and would have led to questions in the House of Commons and a condemnation of the country’s lax rules governing air travel. All reasonable responses to the frightening revelations.

Does the fact that I have not seen a single response, anywhere, speak to the dwindling power of CBC News? I fear it does. Based on audience numbers and worse, audience interest, it seems to me that The National is becoming more and more irrelevant. There was a time when a scoop by CBC became a national topic of conversation. Today I seldom hear anyone mentioning CBC News in conversation. Heck even CBC people have stopped tuning in to what has become an entirely pedestrian newscast that seldom rises beyond the petty parroting of The Globe and Mail. So when CBC breaks a story does anyone see it or care about it? If a tree falls…

I was also struck by the crime The National inflicted upon itself with the massacring of their documentary unit. It took a two part report of about 35 minutes to highlight what we have been missing on The National. Not too long ago reports like the one produced last week were the norm for the back half of the news. Depth and journalism had a place, an outlet, on the program. Today that has all but disappeared, last weeks’ docs proving to be the exception that proves the rule. The long reports have been replaced by silly little interviews with reporters, business talk, predictable panels, and worst of all filler stories that come from nowhere and seem to go back to from where they came.

The most interesting rumor I heard last week was that the docs had higher ratings than the news that preceded them. Yes they got large ads in Canada’s newspapers, but this is unheard of. Television audiences generally go down throughout a show. Not this time. The docs caused a spike in the numbers. What does this say about the “new direction” the Corp chose? I believe it is a condemnation of the new National. It speaks to what Canadians and more important CBC viewers want to watch and what The National is not providing.

Also last week, CBC Radio chose to fire Barbara Budd as host of As it Happens. They will say they decided not to renew her contract. That’s semantics, they dumped her. I was at a CBC party just after the news broke and was surprised to hear CBC insiders say,” it was about time.” They said Budd mangled pronunciations and continually made reading mistakes. They went further. They also said she was hard to get along with, a difficult co-worker who caused problems for the staff.

Truthfully, if she made all those mistakes I did not notice them. I heard a CBC announcer with rare personality who had the ability to speak to and sometimes touch the listening audience. I did not have to work with her so I have no idea about her prickly nature. I did however, speak to a former host of As It Happens about six months ago who predicted Barbara Budd would soon be gone. That former host said it would be a huge mistake for CBC Radio and the program. I was told, “the folks at CBC Radio seem to have no idea how popular and more important how good Barbara is.” The former host went on to tell me that yes Ms. Budd can be difficult but that’s a small price to pay for the kind of talent she brings to her job. I was told the decision will be made for the convenience of the staff and to the detriment of the audience. Sound familiar?

One big question looms over the Barbara Budd firing. If the staffers were right and Budd mangled pronunciations and fumbled scripts, why did it take 15 years to get rid of her? That was a poser the CBC types could not answer. Why indeed was all they had to offer.

Finally, there is the sad story of Krista Erickson. She’s the CBC reporter who is allowed to travel for free on the taxpayers’ dime because she is partner to Lee Richardson, a Tory Member of Parliament from Calgary. You may remember Krista because she got in trouble before for leaking information to the opposition that resulted in embarrassing questions to the government. Ludicrously she seems to have gotten off again. Her boss, Jennifer McGuire, who seems to have no noticeable relationship with journalistic ethics, has come to her defense. Ms. McGuire has chosen to attack those who stand for the ethical practice of journalism, she said, “It is particularly unfortunate that the Canadian Association of Journalists and the Canadian Taxpayers Federation would see fit to weigh in with their ad hoc pronouncements…The CAJ and the CFT suggest that Krista Erickson, in her role as a CBC journalist, is acting improperly. This is categorically incorrect and frankly unfair.”

Wow. What Bizzaro planet did Ms. McGuire come from? The best coverage of the events comes from Canadian Press:

OTTAWA- …It is odd that the CBC is taking such a hard line in the letter, says Geoff Turnbull, a journalism ethics instructor at the University of King’s College in Halifax who spent 30 years as a CBC journalist.
“That’s a strange response on her part,” he said of McGuire’s letter.
Having Erickson cover national politics while taking free flights as the travelling partner of a member of the government is an unacceptable conflict, Turnbull said, and at odds with his experience of normal CBC procedure.
“People were taken off beats, asked to go on extended leaves of absence, refused the right to do certain kinds of coverage and accept certain kinds of benefits,” he said. “This situation is not in the spirit of the kind of journalistic management that I’m used to at CBC.”
The CBC prevents Erickson from reporting on the MP — Lee Richardson of Calgary Centre — and daily political stories on Parliament Hill, but she does report on stories involving politics.
On the evening the Chronicle Herald story was published, for example, CBC-TV’s The National led with an Erickson story featuring Prime Minister Stephen Harper commenting on serial killer Clifford Olson’s government pension.
Stephen Ward, director of the Center for Journalism Ethics at the University of Wisconsin, said it is good that the CBC is monitoring the situation, “but there is more to conflicts of interest than what an internal body of editors deem to be OK.”
The criticism of the CBC appears to be justified, he said.
“The CAJ’s critical comments are not ad hoc but based on a legitimate concern for the public’s perception of the independence of journalism,” he said. “It is one thing for newsrooms to not interfere with journalists’ personal lives, but it is another matter when journalists benefit from taxpayer dollars. In addition, conflicts of interest also speak to the public’s perception of a possible conflict or influence on the reporter. In this case, it is not unreasonable for the public to wonder about a reporter’s independence when benefiting from her personal relationship.”
Erickson should not fly on taxpayer-funded flights as Richardson’s partner, Ward said.
“In this case, the CBC’s conflict rules should be extended to disallow such benefits,” he said. “As a public person and journalist, this is the ‘price’ that Erickson or any other reporter in this position should pay. The best policy is this: Drop the benefits and move on.”

Move on indeed. Perhaps it is time for CBC’s news management, if they agree with McGuire, to move on. Now wouldn’t that be positive move we could all get behind?

Filed under: Media Commentary, Political Commentary, , , , , , , , , ,

Where was the News?

After seventeen glorious days the Olympics have come to an end. In Canada all seems right with the world. We won the most gold medals ever and of course, maybe more importantly, we won gold in hockey. The universe has unfolded as it should, at least north of the 49th parallel.

I will resist the inclination to heap too much more praise on the Olympic broadcasters. I thought they did a great job, some of you have had very specific complaints, I would characterize them as niggles. All I will say is that no Olympics has ever had total coverage in high definition of all the sports from all the venues. The fact that you had to be a subscriber to many of the channels is not the consortium’s fault. It was made clear from the time CTV, Rogers, APTN etcetera won the right to cover the games that events would appear on all the various and sundry channels that came under the consortium’s umbrella. If you did have access to all the channels you could choose to see every event live and in its entirety. That is a massive technological feat and one that was delivered as promised.

Where there was a major failure was with CTV and The Globe and Mail’s coverage of actual news during the Olympics. It’s one thing to be a shill, as former CBC News and NPR boss Jeffery Dvorkin points out, this is normal. Broadcasters always hype their own events. But that’s not what I’m talking about. I am referring to CTV News going seventeen days without a proper newscast. Five minutes of Lloyd at 11 p.m. give or take ten minutes depending on what Olympic event was finishing or starting is abysmal enough. Worse, on most nights, the five minutes of news provided by CTV was taken up by three minutes of what Brian Williams had just told us about the Olympic results.

CTV can have no excuse for ignoring the news of the world. On most days because of poor weather and built in extra days to make up for bad weather, there were long stretches where nothing was going on. Brian Williams was called on many times to fill airtime when there was no event to throw to.

Further still, there are two TSNs, four Rogers Sportsnets, APTN, Much Music and more channels that were available to pick up 30 minutes of slack per day while CTV provided a decent newscast.

Over at The Globe and Mail the editors decided that if you can’t beat them join them. Day after day the news was discarded for more Olympic stories. The front section never had more than three pages of non-Olympic news…oh, unless you consider three pages of sports news tacked onto the end of the front section most days.

The Globe insists it is Canada’s national newspaper. In that case doesn’t it have a duty to cover more events in Canada and the world than the self-sponsored and self-owned Olympic coverage? If a huge non-Olympic story took place in the last two and one-half weeks I defy a Globe reader or a CTV viewer to identify it. Can’t. They just don’t know about it.

For two media, newspapers and television, that are supposed to be hard hit by the new media they showed no understanding of their precarious situation. Any news junkie who cared was forced to scour the internet for news. Some of those people will have found new sources for their news content and won’t readily return to The Globe or CTV. Only this time CTVglobemedia will have no one to blame but themselves. One question though, what did all the news reporters do for the past two weeks? A paid holiday in the south I hope.

On a completely different note, I do hope my non-Toronto readers will forgive me a short rant. Last week one of the most popular broadcasters in Toronto left his show. Andy Barrie had hosted the morning show on CBC radio for decades and he was a major success story. In a crowded market he was number one. Quite a feat for him personally and for CBC Radio. Andy was not my cup of tea, I found him soft in a crunchy granola, Birckenstock kind of way, but I was always impressed by his popularity and success.

In other words, he will be very hard act to follow. Matt Galloway, Andy’s replacement has been an excellent host of the 4 to 6 show in Toronto. Unfortunately for Matt he is replacing an icon. That’s a difficult job under any circumstances. Matt has to know that he will continually be compared to Andy by a listenership that has been loyal to Andy for a very long time. So what do the brilliant producers of the morning show do? After a week of long goodbyes and tributes to Andy Barrie, the idiots at CBC radio bring Andy back for an encore and an even longer goodbye on Matt’s first show. This is lunacy. Why can’t the bozos at CBC Radio let go?

Matt Galloway should have been given a clean start to his own show, an opportunity to make the morning show his own. Ted Koppel didn’t show up on Nightline on the next show after he retired, Walter Cronkite didn’t return for a bow on CBS Evening News, Johnny Carson didn’t return to show up Jay Leno, Harvey Kirk and Knowlton Nash didn’t come back to haunt Peter and Lloyd. This sort of thing is just not done. It’s unseemly. Andy should have known better. The producers should have known better. The fact that it happened speaks to a dysfunctional CBC.

Filed under: Media Commentary, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

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, , , , , , , , , , ,

About the Author

Howard Bernstein is a former TV producer. He has worked at CBC,CTV, Global and has produced shows for most Canadian channels as an independent producer.

Pages

SocialVibe


Categories

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 28 other followers