Re-branding CBC News as Seen by the Globe and Mail

The so-called re-branding exercise gets a thorough going over in today's G & M
here, with my thoughts on this impending disaster included in the story.

My "esprit de l'escalier" moment: re-branding in fact can work, but there must be something of substance on offer once you get past the packaging.

Anchor Peter Mansbridge (for whom I have respect as a journalist) is quoted as saying it has to be this way: "I get it. It's television." Does this mean that for television to be successful, it must downplay substance and context? I don't think so when I watch CBC TV's "The Fifth Estate" or PBS' "Frontline."

If McLuhan was right when he said, "the media is the message," in the case of the re-branding National News, the message has been garbled in transmission.

Closely Watched Pains: Back to the Future on CBC TV

Last night's re-launch of CBC TV's flagship newscast, "The National," was highly anticipated and minutely parsed as to meaning, intent and significance. I don't want to bury the lead so I'll say right now that it was a huge disappointment.

I was one of the live bloggers on J-Source, a Ryerson University website and you can see our comments here.

I think the short version of the critiques was that CBC blew a chance to do something bold. Instead, under the "guidance" and news doctoring of Frank Magid Associates, the strongest impression was that CBC now has a very expensive version of CNN's "The Situation Room" on its hands.

There was a lack of story-telling, a lot of "faux" energy and bonhomie and an anchor who looked ill at ease and indeed, un-anchored as he strolled around the set, dispensing tidbits of information. Cameras were in perpetual motion around the studio making me feel queasy. Flashes of color behind the host faded in and out. Constant references to "Coming Up!" diverted one's attention from the story at hand. It was dazzling but very derivative of a lot of entertainment programs. "So You Think You Can Report?" came to mind. I actually felt nostalgic for Jim Lehrer.

The new "National" wasn't an entirely content-free zone. One feature on H1N1 profiteering was substantive but again marred by cutesy camera work. An interview with a Canadian general who has criticized participation in Afghanistan was solid, but again, jarred by intrusive production values.

In the end, it wasn't CBC's finest hour. Public broadcasting with its philosophic and historic commitment to serve the audience as citizens, was nowhere to be seen last night.

Diversity on CBC Radio

Last night, a session on cultural diversity on CBC Radio was held at Innes College at the University of Toronto. The case study involved a local morning radio program here in Toronto. The speakers were Nick Davis, the senior producer (and a Jamaican Canadian) and the executive producer, Joan Melanson who is white, and Canadian born.

The question of the evening was can an appeal to a more diverse garner new and larger audiences without alienating the core, traditional listener? The answer according to the producers, is an unquestioning "yes."

The program is called "Metro Morning" (a clunky bureaucratic nod to the greater Toronto area which used to be known as "Metropolitan Toronto"). For the past number of years, it's been a consistent number one in a very competitive market.

The program when I knew it in the 90's, was stolid and slightly stodgy. But in its public radio sensibility, it worked very well because it addressed the issues of concern to the core listeners (mostly white and older) to CBC Radio. It was serious and did not do "light-hearted" very well. Compared to the "morning zoo" format of commercial radio, it took its audience seriously. And that was enough. The program became the show of record. Politicians and other local notables pushed to get on "Metro Morning" as a validation of what they do. It also helped that the host, Andy Barrie is smart and smooth without sounding smarmy.

A few years ago, CBC Radio management decided to break the mold and move the program into uncharted waters. Toronto is, after all, the most ethnically diverse city in North America. More than half the residents were born elsewhere. Municipal signage is often in eight or nine languages including French, Russian, Vietnamese, Chinese, Italian and Greek.

But Toronto is no ethnic utopia. A few years, an influx of handguns into the Jamaican community caused a spate of shooting which was almost exclusively black-on-black violence. While other media deplored and tut-tutted the black community, CBC Radio did town halls to explore the issue with some depth and sensitivity. Torontonians were shocked and there were fears that Toronto-the-Good was becoming more American.

But despite the increase in gun violence, the murder rate continues to decline in Toronto, as in Canada and the United States overall. The traditional method of "settling of accounts" was becoming more high-tech - moving from the traditional weapons of choice in bar fights - knives and broken beer bottles to cheap Saturday Night Specials.

So I was cheered by last night's discussion. The producers were clear about change. They hired and retained a more diverse staff. They endured the criticisms of their fellow CBC-ers who accused them of political correctness and pandering. Staying at number one in the market has helped quiet the critics. But as the producers said, it's a work in progress and not all the issues are resolved.

For example: many communities prefer news organizations to report on them in a way that makes the community look good. How can you balance a need for access and trust with accurate reporting? In last night's audience, a group of young black people was openly dismissive - even hostile about "Metro Morning's" portrayal of their community.

One serious problem remains to be addressed: the newscasts which are part of the morning show sound at variance to the rest of the program. News doctors from Frank Magid and Associates in the US have been brought into the CBC with their philosophy of "if it bleeds, it leads." It ain't true, in Toronto at least. And the tone of forced angst and de-contextualized violence on the newscasts is in stark contrast to the sensible openness and community engagement of the rest of the programming.

Performance Evaluations: What Are They Good For?

A chat with a long time and respected journalist who, like me, is now "de-institutionalized" from mainstream media. As we waxed nostalgic over dim sum,
I asked him if he ever received a negative p.e. (performance evaluation)from his newspaper or his supervisor?

"Oh yes," he said. "For years I was up here (hand above head) then suddenly,
I was down here (hand under the table). I just assumed they got tired of me."

I also had my ups and down and I don't know anyone who hasn't received a less than satisfactory performance evaluation.

That got me thinking about the varying nature of management in news organizations. Mostly it's "management by reprimand," possibly because of the unhappy tendency of managers to personalize issues because they lack the tools to get the best out of employees, especially long time inhabitants of the newsroom.

Now it's always possible for senior journalists to suffer from burnout and who should indeed leave the organization. But longtime employees should be valued for their deeper institutional knowledge and their ability to share those skills that took years to acquire.

I admit a mea culpa or two in my management past: I could also be worn down by recalcitrant employees and it often seemed easier to find someone else. But I also bristled against a p.e. that gave me an average mark when I knew I deserved better. It's demoralizing and disheartening to feel so undervalued, especially when an employee felts he or she is giving the organization their best work.

What's worse is that p.e.'s aren't usually followed up with suggestions for improvement or any additional training. It's management by reprimand at its most insidious.

Do performance evaluations work? Not as I've known them.

Media Freedoms at Stake in Turkey

A week is not a long time to get to know the issues in a country as complex and as fascinating as Turkey. But here are some impressions after a short but intense stay:

The Dogan Media Group is one of the most important and influential organizations in that country. It controls about half of all media outlets including the highly influential cable channel - CNN Turk. It's most important daily newspaper is called Hurriyet and it publishes in both Turkish and English.

Last month, the government of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan moved against Dogan and levied a US$3.2 billion fine for tax evasion. If the fine goes through, it will effectively wipe out the media organization. Dogan has been highly effective in a series of investigative reports which have revealed a level of corruption that it claims connects the prime minister's party. Erdogan has also called for Turks to boycott the Dogan media group. Dogan has denounced the fines as politically inspired and the European Union has condemned the government's actions as inimical to the principles of free speech.

This comes at a particularly difficult time for the Turkish government as it presses its claims to membership in the European Union.

At the same time, a century-old cultural, political and religious animosity between Turks and Armenians has been laid to rest. Under the urging of the Europeans and the Obama administration, a protocol of agreement was signed this week in Zurich in which the Turkish and Armenian government agreed to open borders, freer trade and an end to the animosity that has marked relations since the end of World War One.

Driving the point home, a soccer "friendly" was played between the two national teams, under the gaze of the presidents of both countries. This event was simply unthinkable a few years ago. But the thaw in relations came about - in part - because Turkish and Armenian journalists began writing about the need for better relations, despite the antagonism expressed by both governments. One small step for good journalism.

Our last night we dined by the shores of the Sea of Marmara with a couple of local journalist friends (one Yank and one Turk).

We got the lowdown on the political scene which appropriately Byzantine, to say the least. I asked now that the Turks and the Armenians have kissed and made up, what about the Kurds?

“Ah,” said my Turkish friend, "that’s even more difficult. With Armenia, it’s now just history. With the Kurds, it’s still fresh.”

The Turkish army in its ongoing fight against the Kurdish separatists known as the PKK, has killed about 20,000 Kurds over the years. There is not one family in southeastern Turkey that hasn’t lost someone.

All males must serve in the army, but because of that huge number of Kurdish dead, many young Kurds avoid the draft and come to Istanbul. But a residency permit is impossible without proof of military service, so young men are constantly being shaken down by the local cops (all of whom have been in the army) who want to see their discharge papers. I witnessed that myself on more than a couple of occasions.

A job or an apartment without a residency permit? Also illegal but not impossible. That bind has spawned a huge Kurdish economic underground, which is illegal again and in some instance, criminal. All of which is to say that there is a strong anti-Kurdish sentiment among many Turks.

The Qualities of a Functioning News Organization

Former employees of news organizations are often lightening rods for discontent.

This has been my experience: as for the late former premier of Quebec, René Lévesque once told me: "It's a journalist's God-given right to bitch and complain about the bosses."

So it's not surprising that I hear a lot of discontent welling up from my former place of employment - the CBC. Interesting as well, that I hear very little from my other major employer, NPR. More on that in a moment.

Lévesque, a former CBC-Radio-Canada reporter didn't live to see the turmoil that media organizations are going through. Like so many others of his generation, the struggle in newsrooms was almost entirely internal: strange production practices, quirky fellow employees, a very tough union environment and a largely invisible upper management occasionally prone to inscrutable oracular pronouncements about the organization.

Today, newsrooms struggle with external threats that are hard to identify and harder to solve:

Is it declining/shifting audiences? Hard to please advertisers? Is the internet the savior or the enemy?

Just when you think you have nailed down the problem, a solution appears as ephemeral as ever. It's a tough time for management and a nervous time for employees.

Hence my role as an in-box sounding board for former employees who are looking to make sense of it all and possibly to find a way out of what appears to be an unpleasant and uncertain environment.

The CBC sounds like an anxious place these days if the vibe I'm hearing is accurate: a management culture that talks about change more among themselves than to a work force that feels increasingly abandoned and unappreciated. The public is confused about what the CBC is trying to do.

NPR, on the other hand, appears to be very clear about what it is doing and a work force that understands what it is expected to do. The public acknowledges NPR's value. The differences between the two organizations couldn't be more different.

A functioning news organization needs to be clear about four things:

1. what is the purpose of the organization?
2. what is the work that must be done?
3. what are the qualities of the people who work there?
4. what is the value of the product?

CBC is unable to answer those question while NPR is able to.