Why the CBC’s “review” of the Ghomeshi mess is a joke
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:
Friends,
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.
X
Karen Stintz, did Tory’s camp offer to pay you?
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?
Interesting questions.
John Doyle, writing about Ghomeshi but really about Canada’s politics
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:
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.
If you don’t come, I will be mean to you on the Internet
Jan Wong: once a fool, always a fool
Knew about Ghomeshi, did nothing
In Tuesday’s Sun: Obama’s bad night, Harper’s bad year
Nate Silver, the Oracle, has spoken.
Silver – the U.S. statistician and political analyst, the Warren Buffett of modern politics – said over the weekend that President Barack Obama’s Democrats are facing a 75 per cent chance of losing control of the Senate Tuesday night. Given that the Republicans already control the House, this is no small thing. Obama, already a lame duck, would be rendered the lamest of lame ducks.
“The polls are clear enough that the GOP will probably win the Senate,” Silver, who exactly predicted the 2012 outcome. “[The mid-terms] look fairly poor for Democrats.”
Much is at stake, so Silver’s prediction is important. Every one of the 435 seats in the House of Representatives is up for grabs Tuesday night – along with a third of the 100 seats in the Senate. Assorted state governorships are on the line, too.
Having been in both Boston and New York City in the past few days, it seems likely that Obama is facing a loss. The mood on the ground certainly suggests a late-race Republican surge.
But why? And, as we poke through the entrails in advance, what does all this mid-term stuff portend (if anything) for Stephen Harper?
We know, we know. Messrs. Harper and Obama could not be more dissimilar. One is a conservative, the other is a progressive. One runs a super power, one does not. One liked George W. Bush, one did not.
But Obama and Harper share some of the same circumstances. For starters, both have wielded power for most or all of the last decade. Both are the undisputed leaders of their respective parties. And both are facing the same challenges (ISIS and Ebola), while simultaneously experiencing the same opportunities (burgeoning economic growth, shrinking unemployment).
In both Canada and the U.S., there are no general strikes. There are no constitutional crises. There are no mass rallies, seeking a premature end to Obama and Harper’s rule.
So why is Obama likely to lose Tuesday night – and is Harper to do likewise, in less than a year?
On any given day, Nate Silver doesn’t have much to say about Stephen Harper. But what he has to say about Barack Obama should give the Canadian Prime Minister pause for thought. There are three principal reasons for this.
One, Silver says, incumbency has become a bit of a curse at the national level. The electorate in the U.S. have not fallen in love with the Republicans, says Silver, so much as they have been seized with what he calls a “very anti-incumbent” mood.
Two, notwithstanding the fact that growth is up and joblessness is down, fear is upon the land. In their advertising, Republicans have relentlessly hammered the fear button – on ISIS, on Ebola – and the media have provided an uncritical echo chamber. Silver tweeted that, “in NYC, I’ve seen zero people wearing surgical masks or otherwise acting paranoid about Ebola. It’s only the media that’s been irrational.” But the fear campaign has paid dividends. When no one else is offering hope, fear works.
Finally, all politicians claim to oppose the status quo, because they know that voters dislike it. With the exception of Obamacare, Obama hasn’t exactly been a rousing agent of change. If anything, he has favoured a caretaker type of presidency, where even the most modest of achievements are celebrated. As such, Silver dryly notes, “President Obama remains unpopular.”
Anti-incumbency. Anxiety about an unpopular war, and an uncertain future. A desire for change, and a rejection of the status quo. All of these things have combined, on this day, to almost guarantee a bad night for the U.S. President.
All of those things should concern Stephen Harper, too.
Ask Nate Silver, Mr. Prime Minister. He’ll tell you.
LPC fundraiser in Mississauga-Lakeshore!
I love how they call me a “political raconteur.”
Anyway – if you are in the neighbourhood on November 12 (and even if you aren’t), try and come by. It’s for a great cause – namely, ridding the nation of the scourge that is Conservative majority government. Come one, come all! Bring your chequebook!
I hate that picture, but the hair looks pretty good.
Questions for CBC about personalities other than Ghomeshi
Sent from a former senior CBC person I know and respect. It wasn’t just Jian, seems.
Warren, I just read your piece about who knew what and when at the CBC and one of its reporters who is on the fast track to oblivion. Great piece. And I have my suspicions! Indeed, there are some lingering questions:
i. Will the external investigators limit the scope of their enquiry to complaints related to Jian? What if employees come forward with complaints about other CBC on-air persons?
ii. Has the CBC entered into contractual arrangements involving financial compensation for employees who have departed the corporation due to workplace harassment or improprieties on the part of high-profile on-air personalities including but not limited to Jian?
iii. If so, how much money have taxpayers spent on making amends for such workplace improprieties and have any offending employees maintained their positions, if not Jian?
Those are the questions I would be asking were I covering the story…