Lisa LaFlamme, CTV News, and Bad Executive Decisions

There will be no bittersweet on-air goodbye for (now former) CTV nationwide information anchor Lisa LaFlamme, no ceremonial passing of the baton to the upcoming generation, no broadcast retrospectives lionizing a journalist with a storied and award-profitable career. As LaFlamme announced yesterday, CTV’s dad or mum enterprise, Bell Media, has made a decision to unilaterally close her contract. (See also the CBC’s reporting of the tale listed here.)

Whilst LaFlamme herself doesn’t make this declare, there was of program fast speculation that the network’s final decision has a little something to do with the truth that LaFlamme is a female of a specified age. LaFlamme is 58, which by Tv set expectations is not particularly youthful — apart from when you assess it to the age at which popular males who proceeded her have left their respective anchor’s chairs: contemplate Peter Mansbridge (who was 69), and Lloyd Robertson (who was 77).

But an even extra sinister theory is now afoot: rather than mere, shallow misogyny, evidence has arisen of not just sexism, but sexism conjoined with company interference in newscasting. Two evils for the rate of just one! LaFlamme was fired, says journalist Jesse Brown, “because she pushed again versus one particular Bell Media govt.” Brown reviews insiders as proclaiming that Michael Melling, vice president of information at Bell Media, has bumped heads with LaFlamme a quantity of situations, and has a background of interfering with news coverage. Brown further experiences that “Melling has continually shown a absence of regard for ladies in senior roles in the newsroom.”

Needless to say, even if a particular grudge moreover sexism explain what is going on, right here, it however will look to most as a “foolish decision,” a single absolutely sure to trigger the organization headaches. Now, I make it a coverage not to query the business enterprise savvy of experienced executives in industries I don’t know perfectly. And I advise my learners not to leap to the conclusion that “that was a dumb decision” just simply because it’s just one they don’t realize. But nevertheless, in 2022, it’s challenging to picture that the corporation (or Melling far more precisely) didn’t see that there would be blowback in this circumstance. It is just one thing to have disagreements, but it’s an additional to unceremoniously dump a beloved and award-profitable girl anchor. And it’s weird that a senior govt at a news corporation would consider that the truth of the matter would not come out, offered that, right after all, he’s surrounded by men and women whose task, and particular commitment, is to report the information.

And it is really hard not to suspect that this a a lot less than content changeover for LaFlamme’s substitute, Omar Sachedina. Of program, I’m certain he’s joyful to get the occupation. But even though Bell Media’s push release quotations Sachedina declaring graceful items about LaFlamme, absolutely he didn’t want to think the anchor chair amidst common criticism of the transition. He’s using on the purpose beneath a shadow. Maybe the prize is worth the rate, but it is also tricky not to visualize that Sachedina experienced (or now has) some pull, some capability to influence that way of the changeover. I’m not indicating (as some undoubtedly will) that — as an insider who appreciates the genuine story — he must have declined the occupation as sick-gotten gains. But at the pretty the very least, it appears to be reasonable to argue that he really should have applied his influence to form the transition. And if the now-senior anchor does not have that form of impact, we need to be nervous certainly about the independence of that part, and of that newsroom.

A closing, related note about authority and governance in complicated corporations. In any moderately properly-ruled organization, the selection to axe a key, public-going through expertise like LaFlamme would demand indication-off — or at minimum tacit acceptance — from much more than just one senior government. This implies that 1 of two matters is legitimate. Either Bell Media is not that type of nicely-ruled group, or a big range of individuals were involved in, and culpable of, unceremoniously dumping an award-winning journalist. Which is worse?