…so said a Sun News colleague to me. (My response: “No kidding. Good!”)
Maybe that’s the one good thing coming out of the Ghomeshi case: it’s starting to change our world. It’s about time, no?
Oh, and good on Trudeau for making this move, so swiftly. That’s how it’s done, Party That Gave Us Jack Ramsay.
I’ve got 17,000 Twitter followers, and I’ve got you in my sights, pal. You’re in trouble, now.
1. It’s being done by someone who has regularly been a CBC contributor.
2. It’s not looking at the conduct of others who have been at CBC. It should.
3. It is not arm’s length.
In that regard, here is an email sent by a former (and senior CBC) person to me this morning. Heed his/her words:
The report into workplace harassment and improprieties at the CBC has the appearance of a white wash already.
Former employees with concerns that are unrelated to Ghomeshi specifically are directed to contact HR and not the external investigator.
How is HR, an arm of management, likely to receive information from former employees? Particularly if HR has already been involved in their disposition/settlement of a harassment claim? Why would the HR department revisit anything it previously ignored or buried with compensation?
The standard of review announced by CBC is totally inadequate.
Joe Warmington: Did anybody offer to help pay you, or any of that?
Karen Stintz: Uh, yeah.
[A bit later…]
Karen Stintz: Well, you know, I’m learning in politics, that promises really aren’t promises, they’re just good intentions.
Joe Warmington: So somebody offered? The John Tory camp or…?
Karen Stintz: We’ll see.
Joe Warmington: So they did make that deal with you?
The full segment is (finally) here. I am told, by a very reliable source, that Stintz wanted the question asked, on-air, about a Tory operative offering $35,000 in exchange for her no longer being a candidate. And, when Joe asked the question, Stintz was delighted.
Whatever could it all mean? And, while we’re on the subject, has a Tory supporter engaged in a “corrupt practice” (cf. ss. 89-94, Municipal Elections Act, R.S.O. 1996, c. 32)? And, you know, repeated history?
Yesterday, Carl Wilson served the chattering classes a pious, self-involved – and exceedingly poorly-written – piece about how he knew Jian Ghomeshi was abusing women, and how he didn’t do anything about it. It was despicable. (Interestingly, immediately afterwards, the Globe’s Leah McLaren posted this online: “I’ve just read a piece full of high-minded moral outrage and disgust about the Gomeshi scandal written by a male journalist who groped and harassed me as an intern [his identity will not be any secret to good friends of mine]. Just…amazing.”)
Anyway, that was yesterday. Today, something that isn’t as loathsome as Wilson, or his defence of the indefensible. It’s about Ghomeshi, too, but it really has something important to say about the country, and the country’s politics. It’s from John Doyle, a terrific writer about TV and soccer, also for the Globe. His words ring very true with me:
One issue that needs examination is the hierarchy and influence of major Canadian media. My feeling is that Ghomeshi’s importance and influence in Canada was highly overestimated, just like his own sense of importance. Charles Adler and what unfolds on his radio show is vastly more relevant in grasping the country. If you’re in the PMO and keeping tabs on what Canadians think, you’re paying attention to Adler, not to CBC Radio’s Q.
Time was the PMO paid close attention to CBC’s The National, CTV National News and to The Globe and Mail. Now it pays closest attention to Adler and the most-watched TV newscast in Canada, which is the local CTV News in Toronto. Analyze that.
And it’s why, by the by, I go on Charles’ show far, far more than I go on any CBC radio show – because he reaches real people North of Steeles, and South of the Queensway.
He also, I note, treats women with respect, and he’s a gentleman.
But he got a Slate byline!