Lisa LaFlamme, CTV News, and Bad Executive Decisions

There will be no bittersweet on-air goodbye for (now former) CTV national information anchor Lisa LaFlamme, no ceremonial passing of the baton to the future era, no broadcast retrospectives lionizing a journalist with a storied and award-successful job. As LaFlamme declared yesterday, CTV’s parent business, Bell Media, has decided to unilaterally close her agreement. (See also the CBC’s reporting of the tale here.)

When LaFlamme herself doesn’t make this assert, there was of study course speedy speculation that the network’s choice has some thing to do with the simple fact that LaFlamme is a female of a selected age. LaFlamme is 58, which by Television set expectations is not just younger — besides when you compare it to the age at which popular males who proceeded her have still left their respective anchor’s chairs: contemplate Peter Mansbridge (who was 69), and Lloyd Robertson (who was 77).

But an even much more sinister principle is now afoot: rather than mere, shallow misogyny, proof has arisen of not just sexism, but sexism conjoined with corporate interference in newscasting. Two evils for the value of a person! LaFlamme was fired, states journalist Jesse Brown, “because she pushed back again towards 1 Bell Media executive.” Brown reviews insiders as declaring that Michael Melling, vice president of news at Bell Media, has bumped heads with LaFlamme a number of times, and has a historical past of interfering with news protection. Brown even further studies that “Melling has regularly shown a absence of regard for women of all ages in senior roles in the newsroom.”

Pointless to say, even if a private grudge moreover sexism clarify what is likely on, below, it even now will seem to be to most as a “foolish final decision,” a single absolutely sure to trigger the enterprise headaches. Now, I make it a plan not to query the small business savvy of experienced executives in industries I do not know perfectly. And I suggest my pupils not to leap to the summary that “that was a dumb decision” just simply because it’s 1 they don’t understand. But nevertheless, in 2022, it is tough to envision that the firm (or Melling a lot more specifically) didn’t see that there would be blowback in this case. It’s 1 factor to have disagreements, but it is an additional to unceremoniously dump a beloved and award-successful female anchor. And it is bizarre that a senior executive at a information firm would feel that the fact would not appear out, supplied that, after all, he’s surrounded by people whose position, and individual motivation, is to report the news.

And it’s hard not to suspect that this a considerably less than satisfied transition for LaFlamme’s alternative, Omar Sachedina. Of training course, I’m certain he’s content to get the job. But although Bell Media’s press launch estimates Sachedina stating swish points about LaFlamme, definitely he did not want to assume the anchor chair amidst popular criticism of the transition. He’s getting on the position below a shadow. Most likely the prize is worthy of the price tag, but it is also tough not to picture that Sachedina experienced (or now has) some pull, some capacity to affect that method of the changeover. I’m not expressing (as some definitely will) that — as an insider who is aware of the authentic tale — he really should have declined the task as unwell-gotten gains. But at the pretty the very least, it seems truthful to argue that he must have utilised his influence to shape the transition. And if the now-senior anchor doesn’t have that type of impact, we need to be worried certainly about the independence of that function, and of that newsroom.

A final, linked note about authority and governance in intricate corporations. In any reasonably well-ruled group, the final decision to axe a significant, public-facing expertise like LaFlamme would call for indication-off — or at minimum tacit acceptance — from additional than 1 senior executive. This implies that a person of two items is real. Possibly Bell Media isn’t that variety of very well-ruled business, or a huge quantity of persons were being included in, and culpable of, unceremoniously dumping an award-successful journalist. Which is worse?