Lisa LaFlamme, CTV News, and Bad Executive Decisions

There will be no bittersweet on-air goodbye for (now former) CTV national news anchor Lisa LaFlamme, no ceremonial passing of the baton to the future generation, no broadcast retrospectives lionizing a journalist with a storied and award-successful vocation. As LaFlamme introduced yesterday, CTV’s parent company, Bell Media, has resolved to unilaterally conclusion her agreement. (See also the CBC’s reporting of the story right here.)

Although LaFlamme herself doesn’t make this claim, there was of training course fast speculation that the network’s selection has some thing to do with the simple fact that LaFlamme is a female of a sure age. LaFlamme is 58, which by Television standards is not just youthful — except when you evaluate it to the age at which well-known men who proceeded her have left their respective anchor’s chairs: look at Peter Mansbridge (who was 69), and Lloyd Robertson (who was 77).

But an even additional sinister principle is now afoot: rather than mere, shallow misogyny, proof has arisen of not just sexism, but sexism conjoined with company interference in newscasting. Two evils for the rate of one particular! LaFlamme was fired, says journalist Jesse Brown, “because she pushed back again towards just one Bell Media government.” Brown studies insiders as claiming that Michael Melling, vice president of information at Bell Media, has bumped heads with LaFlamme a variety of moments, and has a record of interfering with information coverage. Brown even more studies that “Melling has continuously demonstrated a deficiency of regard for ladies in senior roles in the newsroom.”

Needless to say, even if a private grudge in addition sexism explain what is going on, in this article, it nonetheless will appear to be to most as a “foolish conclusion,” 1 guaranteed to trigger the firm complications. Now, I make it a plan not to concern the business enterprise savvy of experienced executives in industries I do not know very well. And I suggest my college students not to leap to the summary that “that was a dumb decision” just mainly because it is one they never recognize. But continue to, in 2022, it is challenging to picture that the business (or Melling more specifically) didn’t see that there would be blowback in this scenario. It is just one thing to have disagreements, but it is another to unceremoniously dump a beloved and award-successful girl anchor. And it is strange that a senior government at a news group would consider that the truth of the matter would not occur out, offered that, just after all, he’s surrounded by persons whose position, and particular determination, is to report the information.

And it’s hard not to suspect that this a much less than joyful changeover for LaFlamme’s substitute, Omar Sachedina. Of study course, I’m positive he’s satisfied to get the position. But whilst Bell Media’s press launch offers Sachedina saying sleek things about LaFlamme, certainly he didn’t want to think the anchor chair amidst prevalent criticism of the changeover. He’s taking on the position underneath a shadow. Perhaps the prize is truly worth the selling price, but it’s also really hard not to think about that Sachedina experienced (or now has) some pull, some potential to affect that manner of the changeover. I’m not declaring (as some surely will) that — as an insider who is aware the genuine story — he should have declined the job as sick-gotten gains. But at the pretty least, it would seem truthful to argue that he should really have used his influence to form the changeover. And if the now-senior anchor doesn’t have that form of impact, we should really be anxious in truth about the independence of that job, and of that newsroom.

A remaining, related observe about authority and governance in intricate corporations. In any reasonably perfectly-ruled business, the determination to axe a big, general public-struggling with talent like LaFlamme would involve signal-off — or at least tacit approval — from much more than one senior executive. This implies that just one of two matters is true. Possibly Bell Media is not that variety of nicely-governed organization, or a huge quantity of individuals were involved in, and culpable of, unceremoniously dumping an award-profitable journalist. Which is worse?